Case: Avabelle Baskett, et al. No. 161-78 David Allen, et ah, No. 340-78 Donald Allen, et al., No. 317-79L Boone County, State of Kentucky, No. 311-80L City of Covington, et al., No. 616-80L v. The United States
Abbreviation: Baskett v. United States
Decision Date: 1981-10-30
Docket Number: Nos. 161-78, 340-78, 317-79L, 311-80L, 616-80L
Citation: 229 Ct. Cl. 528
Volume: 229
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Avabelle Baskett, et al. No. 161-78 David Allen, et ah, No. 340-78 Donald Allen, et al., No. 317-79L Boone County, State of Kentucky, No. 311-80L City of Covington, et al., No. 616-80L v. The United States
Judges: Before Friedman, Chief Judge, Kunzig and Bennett, Judges.
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
Nos. 161-78, 340-78, 317-79L, 311-80L, 616-80L.
October 30, 1981
Avabelle Baskett, et al. No. 161-78 David Allen, et ah, No. 340-78 Donald Allen, et al., No. 317-79L Boone County, State of Kentucky, No. 311-80L City of Covington, et al., No. 616-80L v. The United States
Norman E. Hay, attorney of record, for plaintiffs. Gleason, Hay & Gleason, of counsel.
Hubert M. Crean, with whom was Assistant Attorney General Carol E. Dinkins, for defendant.
Before Friedman, Chief Judge, Kunzig and Bennett, Judges.

Opinion:
Plaintiffs request review (Rule 53(c)) of the order issued by the trial judge on July 31, 1981, consolidating the five above cases for all further proceedings. He took this action pursuant to the authority of Rules 13 and 131(a). Plaintiffs challenge the proper exercise of his discretion.
Rule 53(c)(2) provides that a party dissatisfied with a procedural order of the trial judge may request interlocutory review of it (1) when the trial judge certifies the order for review or (2) where there is no such certification the dissatisfied party shows extraordinary circumstances which would lead to irreparable injury or a waste of resources of the parties or of the court.
The trial judge has not certified the request for review, and we do not think that plaintiffs have made the showing required by the rule to obtain review. We are satisfied that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in issuing the challenged order.
it is therefore ordered, upon consideration of plaintiffs request for review of the trial judge's order of July 31,1981, and defendant's response thereto, that the said request is denied.