State Farm Mutl Auto v. Red Lion Med Ctr Inc , 57 F. App'x 77 ( 2003 )

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-31-2003
State Farm Mutl Auto v. Red Lion Med Ctr Inc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-1039
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"State Farm Mutl Auto v. Red Lion Med Ctr Inc" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 832.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/832
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 02-1039, 02-1097 and 02-1272
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.;
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
v.
RED LION MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a PRO-CARE MEDICAL
AND REHABILITATION CENTER; GREGORY LUCHIN; MICHAEL GLIOT;
YAKOV RABINOVICH, M.D., P.C. d/b/a PRO-CARE MEDICAL AND
REHABILITATION CENTER; IRENE RABINOVICH; RICHARD SCHLESSEL,
M.D.; JOSEPH SHNAYDERMAN; MARINA KATS, Esquire;
G.D.L. MANAGEMENT, INC.
Marina Kats,
Appellant in No. 02-1039
Michael Gliot,
Appellant in No. 02-1097
Richard Schlessel, M.D.,
Appellant in No. 02-1272
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 95-cv-02542)
District Court Judge: Honorable Carol Sandra Moore Wells, Magistrate
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 28, 2003
Before: SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges,
and DEBEVOISE, District Judge*
(Filed January 29, 2003)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Appellants (collectively referred to as “Red Lion”) seek review of orders of the
Magistrate Judge granting the motions of Appellees (collectively referred to as “State
Farm”) for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and for leave to file a second
amended complaint.
Normally, a court of appeals only has jurisdiction over appeals of “final orders.” 28
U.S.C. § 1291. The Magistrate’s order under Rule 60(b) was not a final order, but rather,
was an interlocutory one. See Parks v. Collins, 761 F.2d 1101, 1104 (5th Cir. 1986) (Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)). As in this case, “[w]hen an order granting Rule 60(b) motion merely
vacates the judgment and leaves the case pending for further determination, the order is
akin to an order granting a new trial and in most instances, is interlocutory and
nonappealable.” National Passenger Railroad Corp. v. Maylie, 910 F.2d 1181, 1183 (3d
Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Likewise, the Magistrate’s order granting
_________________________
*The Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise, Senior Judge, United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
State Farm leave to file a second amended complaint was interlocutory. Michelson v.
2
CitiCorp Nat’l Servs., Inc., 138 F.3d 508, 512 (3d Cir. 1998).
A party may appeal non-final – or, “interlocutory” orders – under certain
circumstances. Most of these circumstances are outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Here, none
of these circumstances apply. Red Lion, nevertheless, argues that the Magistrate Judge’s
order is appealable for two reasons: (1) the order was not in her power to make – i.e., it was
ultra vires – and (2) the District Court has failed to review its objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s order. We find these arguments unavailing. Even if it were true that the Magistrate
Judge’s actions were ultra vires and that the District Court was derelict, we do not see – and
appellants have failed show – how our jurisdiction is triggered. The District Court clearly
has retained jurisdiction over the matter, which has not yet come to a conclusion. When
the Court has finally disposed of the matter, Red Lion may appeal and raise the arguments it
has presented to us.
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
________________________
3
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Please file the foregoing not precedential opinion.
/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell
Circuit Judge
Dated: January 29, 2003
4