📄 Extracted Text (442 words)
Page 5
91 F.3d 385, *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19807, **;
35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1352
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Final Judgment Rule
[HN1] Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or
the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a final judgment unless the
district court makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and an
express direction for the entry of judgment. Strict adherence to the certification
requirements of Rule 54(b) has been the court's consistent view.
Civil Procedure > Judgments > Entry of Judgments > Multiple Claims & Parties
Civil Procedure > Judgments > Relief From Judgment > Motions to Alter & Amend
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Final Judgment Rule
[HN2] To be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an order must possess the degree of
finality required to meet the appealability requirements of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291. This degree
of finality is defined as a judgment which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves
nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.
Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Pleadings > Amended Pleadings > Leave of
Court
Civil Procedure > Judgments > Relief From Judgment > Motions to Alter & Amend
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Final Judgment Rule
[HN3] An order denying leave to amend a complaint is not a "final decision" within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291.
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Interlocutory Orders
[HN4] See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(b).
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Collateral Order Doctrine
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Final Judgment Rule
[HN5] Under the "collateral order" exception to the final judgment, an interlocutory order is
immediately appealable if, inter alia, the order would "be effectively unreviewable on
appeal from a final judgment."
COUNSEL: FREDERICK R. DETTMER, New York, NY (Karen M. Streisfeld, Law Office of
Frederick R. Dettmer, New York, NY, Neil Friedkin, Lamendola & Friedkin, Great Neck,
NY, of counsel), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
ANDREW R. KOSLOFF, New York, NY (Kent T. Stauffer, Litigation Division, The Chase
Manhattan Bank, N.A., of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
SCOTT K. NIGRO, Long Beach, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Richard Kahn.
Kenneth M.H. Hoff, Matthias & Berg, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Matthias
& Berg, Jeffrey P. Berg, and Michael R. Matthias.
JUDGES: Before: MINER, McLAUGHLIN and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: MINER
For internal use only
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0053245
CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00199429
EFTA01363295
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
d78fa7cacac3562105a33cac4c2de39617f11f70d3b4435eea74fa46f19d6276
Bates Number
EFTA01363295
Dataset
DataSet-10
Document Type
document
Pages
1
Comments 0