Opinion ID: 160738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We unquestionably have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s preliminary injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which states, in relevant part, “the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from ... [i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts ... refusing ... injunctions.” When a district court’s interlocutory order expressly denies an injunction, the order “fits squarely within the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)” and is immediately appealable. Utah State Dep’t of Health v. Kennecott Corp., 14 F.3d 1489, 1496 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 872 (1994). 4 We assume the Towing Companies’ counsel inadvertently violated Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(5) and Tenth Circuit Rule 28, by failing to include, in appellant’s brief, a statement of the issues presented for review. -8- We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s final order granting partial summary judgment to defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Rule 54(b). The denial of a motion for summary judgment is generally not a final, appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Lee v. Nicholl, 197 F.3d 1291, 1297 (10th Cir. 1999); but see Rose v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 219 F.3d 1216, 1221 n.3 (10th Cir. 2000). As is the case here, however, the denial of partial summary judgment becomes appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when it is accompanied by a final order granting a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. See Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc. v. Local 776, Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 969 F.2d 1436, 1440 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1022 (1992); see also Abend v. MCA, Inc., 863 F.2d 1465, 1482 (9th Cir. 1988). In this instance, the district court certified as a final order the granting of the Commissioner’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, thus giving us jurisdiction. Because we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the Towing Companies’ motions for preliminary injunction and partial summary judgment, and the grant of the Commissioner’s partial summary judgment, we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s motion for reconsideration. Having established our jurisdiction, we proceed to the merits of the case. -9-