In Re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
In Re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brian Elliott v. Archdiocese New York (ca3, 2012-06-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brian Elliott v. Archdiocese New York
3rd Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 456 F.3d 167, 175-76 (D.C.Cir.2006); Stockman’s Water Co., LLC v. Vaca Partners, L.P., 425 F.3d 1263 , 1265 (10th Cir.2005); Nat’l Assoc. of *225 Home Builders v. Norton, 325 F.3d 1165 , 1167 (9th Cir.2003); LTV Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers (In re Chateaugay Carp.), 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam). 7 We also are persuaded, however, that Rule 54(b) does not require that a district court use the talismanic phrase “there is no just reason for delay.” The district court may state that it has determined expressly that “there is no just rea…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cotton v. McCarthy
2d Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
P. 54(b); In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Official Creditors Committee of Industrial Ceramics, Inc. v. Industrial Ceramics Associates
W.D.N.Y. · 2000 · confidence medium
In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Capital District Physician's Health Plan v. O'Higgins
N.D.N.Y. · 1997 · confidence medium
Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947 F.2d 627, 629-30 (2d Cir.1991); In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd.
E.D.N.Y · 1996 · confidence medium
In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam); see also New York v. United States, 568 F.2d 887 , 893 n. 10 (2d Cir.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Burke v. Warren County Sheriff's Department
N.D.N.Y. · 1996 · confidence medium
In re Ghateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hbe Leasing Corporation v. Frank
2d Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991). 13 In the instant case, the District Court did not expressly determine that there was no just reason for delay in entering judgment.
cited Cited as authority (rule) HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank
2d Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. A.I. Leasing II, Inc. (In Re Pan Am Corp.)
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · confidence medium
In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam) (hereinafter “Cha-teaugay II”).
discussed Cited "see" Matheson v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB
2d Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See LTV Steel Co., Inc. v. United Mine Workers of America (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 928 F.2d 63, 64-65 (2d Cir.1991) For the reasons stated above, the appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice to a reinstatement should the district court certify “a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties” based on a finding of “no just reason for delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of New York v. Amro Realty Corporation Harry Moskowitz and David Moskowitz, Defendants-Third-Party v. Zurich Insurance Company Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company Federal Insurance Company and Home Insurance Company, Third-Party Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company Unigard Security Insurance Company Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and First State Insurance Company, Third-Party
1st Cir. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Perez v. Ortiz, 849 F.2d 793, 796-97 (2d Cir.1988)." Shrader v. Granninger, 870 F.2d 874, 878 (2d Cir.1989). 27 As required in this circuit, e.g., In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam), the district court included a reasoned explanation of its conclusion that there is no just reason for delay.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Chateaugay Corporation, Reomar, Inc., the Ltv Corporation, Debtors. Ltv Steel Company, Inc., Bcnr Mining Corporation, Nemacolin Mines Corporation, and Tuscaloosa Energy Corporation
v.
United Mine Workers of America, Joseph P. Connors, Sr., Donald E. Pierce, Jr., William Miller, William B. Jordan and Paul R. Dean as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust
246.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 18, 1991.
928 F.2d 63

928 F.2d 63

19 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1377, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,864

In re CHATEAUGAY CORPORATION, Reomar, Inc., the LTV
Corporation, et al., Debtors.
LTV STEEL COMPANY, INC., BCNR Mining Corporation, Nemacolin
Mines Corporation, and Tuscaloosa Energy
Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee,
Joseph P. Connors, Sr., Donald E. Pierce, Jr., William
Miller, William B. Jordan and Paul R. Dean as
trustees of the United Mine Workers of
America 1974 Benefit Plan and
Trust, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 246, Docket 90-5020.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 19, 1990.
Dismissed Dec. 17, 1990.
Motion For Reinstatement Jan. 23, 1991.
Decided March 18, 1991.

William F. Hanrahan, Groom and Nordberg, Washington, D.C., Michael Devorkin, John J. Rieck, Jr., Doar, Devorkin & Rieck, New York City, David W. Allen, General Counsel, United Mine Workers of America, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants.

Sharon Katz, Karen E. Wagner, Davis Polk & Wardwell and Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before OAKES, Chief Judge, MESKILL, Circuit Judge, and RESTANI,[*] Judge.

PER CURIAM:

[*~63]1

This is a request to reinstate an appeal previously dismissed by this Court for lack of jurisdiction. In re Chateaugay Corp., 922 F.2d 86 (2d Cir.1990). Appellant United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust (Benefit Trust) secured a judgment from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Lifland, J., in response to our opinion and now seeks to reinstate the appeal.

2

For the reasons that follow, we decline to reinstate the appeal. This denial is without prejudice to reinstatement when our jurisdiction has been invoked properly.

3

As noted above, we dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In so doing we expressly provided the Benefit Trust with an opportunity to reinstate the appeal. We made it clear that in order for us to have jurisdiction the Benefit Trust had to obtain certification from the bankruptcy court pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, incorporated in its entirety into the Bankruptcy Rules through B.R. 7054(a). The judgment obtained by the Benefit Trust does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 54(b).

4

The language of Rule 54(b) unambiguously states that absent an express determination of no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judgment, the order at issue is not final. Courts, if anything, have interpreted Rule 54(b) even more strictly than the Rule's language requires.

5

Case law dictates that "a district court cannot merely announce that 'there is no just reason for delay.' " Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. v. LTV Corp. (PBGC), 875 F.2d 1008, 1014 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)). " 'Rather, its certification must be accompanied by a reasoned, even if brief, explanation of its conclusion.' " Id. (quoting National Bank of Washington v. Dolgov, 853 F.2d 57, 58 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam) (citation omitted)), rev'd on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2668, 110 L.Ed.2d 579 (1990); see Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 1464, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980). If the 54(b) certificate is defective because it is missing either element of Rule 54(b), we are deprived of jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).

6

In this instance, although the bankruptcy court entered judgment, the certificate does not include a finding of no just reason for delay. As a result, the elements of Rule 54(b) are not satisfied and we still lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Clearly the appeal cannot now be reinstated.

[*~64]7

It may not have been clear to the Benefit Trust and the bankruptcy court that strict compliance with Rule 54(b) is required in the bankruptcy context. As a result, we are providing the Benefit Trust with yet another opportunity to cure the jurisdictional defect that now exists. The Benefit Trust is granted thirty (30) days to obtain the 54(b) certification. On procuring a proper 54(b) certificate, containing a statement of no just reason for delay with a brief explanation of the reasoning behind that finding, and an express direction for entry of judgment, the Benefit Trust may again seek to reinstate the appeal. Upon reinstatement we will decide the merits of this action without further briefing or argument.

*

Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation