Court Opinion

ID: 9448177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:24:57.586729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:19.047656
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
In my view this is a situation where the appellant, except for Steiner, supra, would have asked in the district court for an order under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The attention of the parties is invited to the amendment of Rule 54(b), effective on July 19, 1961.
I am unable to agree that this is really an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or denying an injunction. The case against Commerce-Pacific did not reach the point of granting or denying an injunction. The dismissal is on the ground of venue. I test the case by what was the issue ruled on and what was the ruling, not by the prayer of a claim.
I would not think that we would allow an appeal if the cross-claim had been dismissed for want of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim — -just because there was a prayer for an injunction.
I distinguish Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528, on the ground it is a true collateral order doctrine case. To me, this is not.