Court Opinion

ID: 2963034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:05:13.710126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:27.692562
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          December 29, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          Nos. 94-1410               94-1441                        IN RE:  TWO APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE                     SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION.                              _________________________                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________                              _________________________               Judith  Resnik,  with  whom  Dennis E.  Curtis,  Richard  A.
               ______________               _________________   ___________          Bieder,  and Koskoff, Koskoff &  Bieder, P.C. were  on brief, for
          ______       ________________________________          appellants Bieder, et al.               Jose E. Fernandez-Sein on brief for appellant Nachman.
               ______________________               Steven C. Lausell, with whom Jimenez, Graffam & Lausell were
               _________________            __________________________          on brief, for appellee Jimenez, Graffam & Lausell.               Will Kemp, with whom Stanley Chesley, Wendell Gauthier, John
               _________            _______________  ________________  ____          Cummings, David Indiano and Harrison, Kemp & Jones, Chtd. were on
          ________  _____________     _____________________________          brief, for remaining appellees.                              _________________________                              _________________________

                    Per Curiam.   These  two appeals were  consolidated for
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________          oral  argument  with  a  number   of  other  appeals.  ("the  Fee          Appeals").  Unlike the Fee Appeals, which are concerned primarily          (albeit  not exclusively) with  a global, end-of-litigation award          of  attorneys' fees, these two  appeals involve only  an order in          respect to  costs.1  Moreover,  the order appealed  from resolves          only one isolated  component of  the dispute over  costs in  this          massive litigation.  In other orders anent costs, e.g., Order No.
                                                            ____          478; Order No. 510-A, the district court has limned its preferred          approach  for  resolving certain  other  aspects  of the  overall          inquiry  into costs.   However,  most of  the issues  relating to          costs remain pending, unresolved, in the court below.                    While  we have  appellate jurisdiction over  the global          fee award, see In re Nineteen Appeals, 982  F.2d 603, 608-10 (1st
                     ___ ______________________          Cir.  1992), there  is as  yet  no global  costs award.   In  the          ordinary  course, the court of appeals may hear appeals only from          final orders,  see 28 U.S.C.    1291, and  the orders  entered to
                         ___          date  in respect to costs  are not sufficiently  final to qualify          under that rubric.                    To  be  sure,  there  are exceptions  to  the  finality          principle    but  none are  applicable here.   In  particular, we          reject appellant's  suggestion that the "common  fund" exception,          see In  re Nineteen Appeals, 982 F.2d at 609, pertains.  We think
          ___ _______________________          that  the  exception,  when  other  requirements  are  satisfied,                              
          ____________________               1The two appeals in question are both appeals from Order No.          520 (involving the so-called  "Foulds' expense").  Neither notice          of appeal raises any other issues.                                          2

          applies  to global awards, not  to piecemeal interim  orders.  If          every link in the chain could be appealed separately, chaos would          result.                    We need go no  further.  We dismiss these  two appeals,          without  prejudice, for  want  of appellate  jurisdiction.2   The          issues  raised therein may be  raised anew in  appeals taken from          the district court's  final (global)  order in  respect to  costs          when such an order is entered.          Appeals dismissed.
          Appeals dismissed.
          _________________                              
          ____________________               2To  the extent that the Fee Appeals attempt to raise claims          related  to costs, e.g., Appeal No. 94-1156, which purports to be
                             ____          an appeal from two orders anent costs (No. 478 and No. 510-A), as          well as from  the global award of fees, we  will, when we release          our opinion  covering those cases, dismiss  without prejudice the          portions of the appeals relating to the cost orders.                                          3