Trans Ins Co v. Prof Eng Consultants, et al

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-30597
_____________________
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.; TONY ARIKOL; TIM
HART; TOMMY CARPENTER,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(00-CV-881-M1)
February 11, 2002
Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jurisdiction is lacking over this interlocutory appeal of the
district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss based on
abstention. The denial does not “fall within the limited class of
final collateral orders”, Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States,
489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989), because it does not satisfy the standard
established in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468

-- 1 of 2 --

2
(1978): “[T]he order must conclusively determine the disputed
question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the
merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal
from a final judgment.” See also Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v.
Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271 (1988). Accordingly, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --