The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
014397o-pdf•Brent Colbert, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Dymacol, Inc.; Intellirisk Management Corp
014397o-pdfCourt of Appeals for the Third CircuitMar 10, 2003
PRECEDENTIAL
Filed March 10, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-4397
BRENT COLBERT, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v.
DYMACOL, INC.; INTELLIRISK MANAGEMENT CORP.,
Appellants
On Appeal From the United States Court of Appeals
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-03577)
District Judge: Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer
Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA,
NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, McKEE, RENDELL, BARRY,
AMBRO, FUENTES and ROSENN, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
In view of the fact that Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure was promulgated pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(e), see Advisory Committee Notes, and an appeal
granted pursuant to § 1292(b) may be dismissed if
improvidently granted, see e.g., Maryland Cas. Co. v. W.R.
Grace & Co., 128 F.3d 794, 798 (2d Cir. 1997); Van Meter
v. Barr, 976 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Int’l Soc’y for Krishna
Consciousness, Inc. v. Air Canada, 727 F.2d 253, 255 (2d
Cir. 1984); New York Health & Hosp. Corp. v. Blum, 678
F.2d 392, 393 (2d Cir. 1982); Nickert v. Puget Sound Tug &
-- 1 of 2 --
Barge Co., 480 F.2d 1039, 1041 (9th Cir. 1973); and in
further view of the fact that the Court finds that the
question presented by Appellants in their Application
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) for Permission to Appeal
from the October 2, 2001 Order was inaccurate in that
Appellee had not received all relief requested in his
complaint, see Respondent’s Answer to Application for
Permission to Appeal from the October 2, 2001 Order, and
in that Appellee opposed the grant of permission to appeal
on that ground;
It is ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed as
improvidently granted and the case is remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings.
BY THE COURT,
/s/ Edward R. Becker
Chief Judge
DATED: 10 March 2003
A True Copy:
Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.