Black Fire Fighters, et al v. City of Dallas TX, e

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 20, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 06-11250
Summary Calendar
_______________
BLACK FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. OF DALLAS, TEXAS; WALTER DUNAGIN;
PATRICK FARRIS; SHAWN GARY; JAMES HILL, II; EDDIE JONES;
GEORGE FLORENCE; BILLY KELLY; ELIZABETH HILTON; JOHN ROGERS;
JAMES HUNTER, SR.; JOHN SIMIEN; BILLY INGRAM; ERVIN JACKSON;
TIFFANY TAYLOR; ALVIN SAMPLES; MICHAEL KUYKENDALL; MACKIE REESE;
JACQUELINE SMITH; HELEN WATTS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS; FIRE CHIEF STEVE ABRAIRA,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
m 03:06-CV-1421
______________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs, the Black Firefighters Associa-
tion, Inc. of Dallas and several individual His-
panic firefighters, filed a civil rights class ac-
tion in state court alleging racially discrimina-
tory employment practices. Defendants, the
City of Dallas and Fire Chief Steve Abraira,
timely filed a motion to remove to federal
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) based
on federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs moved to remand,
which was denied. Plaintiffs then filed a notice
of interlocutory appeal of their denied motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).
This court lacks jurisdiction over the inter-
locutory appeal. A motion denying remand is
not a final judgment subject to review under
28 U.S.C. § 1291,1 nor is it a collateral order
that might be reviewable under the Cohen doc-
trine.2
Plaintiffs maintain that we have been grant-
ed jurisdiction over their appeal through a pro-
vision of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). That section provides:
Section 1447 shall apply to any removal of
a case under this section, except that not-
withstanding section 1447(d), a court of
appeals may accept an appeal from an order
of a district court granting or denying a
motion to remand a class action to the
State court from which it was removed if
application is made to the court of appeals
not less than 7 days after entry of the order.
This grant of appellate jurisdiction, by its own
terms, applies only to removals under
§ 1453(b) and not to removals under § 1441.
Even if plaintiffs could avail themselves of this
section, they did not file the required petition
for permission to appeal under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 5. See Patterson v. Dean
Morris, LLP, 444 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir.
2006).3
The appeal is DISMISSED for want of
jurisdiction.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1 See Lewis v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.,
183 F.2d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1950); Mo. Pac. Ry. v.
Fitzgerald, 160 U.S. 556, 582 (1896).
2 See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 546; see, e.g., Rohrer, Hibler, &
Replogle, Inc. v. Perkins, 728 F.2d 860, 862 (7th
Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
3 Plaintiffs’ attempt to reclassify their appeal as
a mandamus petition similarly fails; they have not
complied with any provision of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 21(a).

-- 2 of 2 --