Lee Ratner v. Sci. Resources Corp., Don A. Mayerson, Lee Ratner v. Sci. Resources Corp., 462 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Lee Ratner v. Sci. Resources Corp., Don A. Mayerson, Lee Ratner v. Sci. Resources Corp., 462 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sierra Club v. Watt (caed, 1985-04-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Sierra Club v. Watt
E.D. Cal. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ratner v. Scientific Resources Corp., 53 F.R.D. 325, 329 (S.D.Fla.1971), appeal dism., 462 F.2d 616 (5th Cir.1972) (“Defendants have alleged no facts to indicate that the above requirements for compelling joinder [Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)(1)-(2) ] have been met”); Atlantic Aero Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 93 F.R.D. 333, 334 (M.D.N.C.1981) (“Rule 19(a) requires that Cessna show that the pilot is a ‘person to be joined’ within the meaning of the rule.
cited Cited "see" Mayer v. Development Corporation of America
D. Del. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ratner v. Scientific Resources Corp., 53 F.R.D. 325 (S.D.Fla. 1971), app. dismissed, 462 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bartels v. International Commodities Corp.
D. Conn. · 1977 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Robinson v. Penn Central Co., 484 F.2d 553 (3d Cir. 1973), with Ratner v. Scientific Resources Corp., 53 F.R.D. 325 (S.D.Fla.1971) , appeal dismissed, 462 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1972) ; see 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 4.33 n. 3.3. 8 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lee Ratner
v.
Scientific Resources Corp., Don A. Mayerson, Lee Ratner v. Scientific Resources Corp.
71-3142.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 8, 1972.
462 F.2d 616
Published

462 F.2d 616

Lee RATNER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES CORP. et al., Defendants,
Don A. Mayerson et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Lee RATNER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES CORP. et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 71-3142, 71-3436.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

June 8, 1972.

David M. Stolar, Miami Beach, Fla., David S. Ward, Asher B. Lans, New York City, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman & Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff-appellant; Lans, Feinberg & Cohen, Robert Stephan Cohen, New York City, of counsel.

William R. Alvin, Frates, Floyd, Pearson & Stewart, Robert L. Floyd, Miami, Fla., Perry S. Bechtle, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants-appellees; James D. Little, Miami, Fla., of counsel.

Before PHILLIPS,[*] THORNBERRY and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Plaintiff-appellant brought this action against numerous defendants on the following legal grounds:

2

1. Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

3

2. Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934.

4

3. Fraud under Fla.Stat. Sec. 517.301, F.S.A.

5

4. Common law fraud.

6

All these bases for relief were grounded on identical factual allegations. The district court, 53 F.R.D. 325, dismissed the allegations of Florida statutory and common law fraud as to only four of the defendants, appellees here, on the basis that they could not properly be served with process on any claim other than that arising under the Securities Act.

7

It is clear that the order of the district court is not final under 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1291; Schwartz v. Eaton, 2d Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 195, and there has been no attempt to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1292(b) or Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b).

8

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

*

Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation