Opinion ID: 3010860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) appeals from an order of the district court dated March 13, 1996, entered March 15, 1996, granting partial summary judgment in 2 favor of plaintiff Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (Liberty) on the grounds that Ford's assessment of a dealer-parity surcharge (DPS) violated the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. S 56:10-15(a) (West Supp. 1997). Ford also appeals from the district court's order of September 19, 1996, entered September 23, 1996, amending the March 13 order nunc pro tunc to preclude Ford from altering certain practices that were in effect as of the date of the March order. Liberty cross appeals from the district court's March 13, 1996 dismissal of its claim alleging illegal price discrimination under the RobinsonPatman Act, 15 U.S.C. S 13(a), and from the portions of the district court's February 26, 1997 final order entered February 27, 1997, rejecting Liberty's claim for damages incurred before December 1991, denying recovery of certain fees, and awarding prejudgment interest at the rates set forth in New Jersey Court Rule 4:42-11. The district court had jurisdiction over Liberty's state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1332 based on diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy, and over Liberty's federal law claim under 28 U.S.C. S 1331. This court's jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. S 1291 based on the district court's entry of the final order dated February 26, 1997, and entered February 27, 1997.1 For the reasons that follow, we will reverse the district court's September 19, 1996 order, and will vacate the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees and remand that issue for reconsideration. We otherwise will affirm. _________________________________________________________________ 1. Ford initially filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court's September 19, 1996 order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1292(a)(1), which provides that the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from . . . [i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts . . . granting . . . injunctions . . . . By order of this court the interlocutory appeal, which was docketed as number 96-5762, was consolidated with Ford's appeal in number 97-5189 and Liberty's cross appeal in number 97-5190 from the district court's final order. The district court on April 25, 1997, entered a supplemental final order dated April 22, 1997, which is not at issue in this appeal. 3