Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boston v. Hospital Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

September 18, 2014

BONNIE BOSTON and SYLVIA WALLACE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
HOSPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.; UNITED FLORALA, INC. d/b/a Florala Memorial Hospital; Defendants.

ORDER

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge.

This cause is before the court on a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc. #38), filed by Defendant Hospital Holdings, Inc. The Plaintiffs have filed a response in which they state that they do not oppose a dismissal of Defendant Hospital Holdings, Inc. without prejudice, each party to bear their own costs. The Plaintiffs apparently concede the lack of personal jurisdiction, and indicate an intention to re-file in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Hospital Holdings, Inc. has replied to the Plaintiffs' response, stating that it ought to be awarded fees and costs as a prevailing party, citing a court case from outside of this circuit awarding fees and costs where a WARN Act claim was withdrawn. See In re Arrow Transportation Co. of Del., 224 B.R. 457 (D. Ore. 1998). That case, however, did not involve a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

This court finds that a dismissal without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction is not sufficient to entitle Hospital Holdings, Inc. to fees and costs as a prevailing party. Cf. Davis v. Jackson, 776 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1318 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (finding that dismissal of claims based on jurisdictional basis did not render the defendant a prevailing party under the Clean Water Act).

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #38) is GRANTED and Hospital Holdings, Inc. is

DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs and Hospital Holdings, Inc. are to bear their own costs.

A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on December 1, 2013, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $455.00 to $505.00.

CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST

1. Appealable Orders: Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute:

(a) Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under 28 U.S.C.§ 158, generally are appealable. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre , 701 F.2d 1365, 1368 (11th Cir. 1983). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
(b) In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Williams v. Bishop , 732 F.2d 885, 885-86 (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. , 486 U.S.196, 201, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 1721-22, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988); LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc. , 146 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 1998).
(c) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals are permitted from orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions..." and from "[i]nterlocutory decrees... determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed." Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted.
(d) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: The certification specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.