Helmer v. Dolenz ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10519
Conference Calendar
BRENDA DOLENZ HELMER,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BERNARD J. DOLENZ ET AL.,
Defendants.
BERNARD J. DOLENZ, Trustee,
Defendant-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CV-785-E
--------------------
June 14, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bernard J. Dolenz appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing him as a party to the instant interpleader action and
denying his motions to remand the case and for recusal of the
district judge. The Government argues that this court lacks
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-10519
-2-
appellate jurisdiction because these orders are interlocutory
orders which were not certified by the district court, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Although the orders appealed from were not appealable orders
at the time Dolenz’s notice of appeal was filed, the subsequent
entry of a final judgment disposing of all claims and parties to
the action renders the jurisdictional issue moot. Dolenz was
properly dismissed as a party to the action because he disavowed
any interest in the money underlying the interpleader, stripping
himself of any personal or legal interest in the outcome of the
suit, thereby depriving himself of standing to continue and
divesting the district court of jurisdiction over him. See Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The district
court did not err in not giving Dolenz notice or an opportunity
to be heard before dismissing him for lack of standing. See
Sommers Drug Stores Emp. Profit Sharing Trust v. Corrigan, 883
F.2d 345, 348 (5th Cir. 1989). Dolenz’s contention that he
should have been allowed to adjudicate the issue of his
indebtedness to the other parties is frivolous because the issue
was irrelevant to the interpleader action and could not have been
adjudicated therein.
The district court’s order dismissing Dolenz is AFFIRMED.
Dolenz’s argument that the district court erred in denying his
motions to remand and for recusal are not addressed as he lacks
standing to appeal those orders.
AFFIRMED.