NO Towing Assoc Inc, et al v. Foster, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30927
Summary Calendar
THE NEW ORLEANS TOWING ASSOCIATION, INC.;
DUCROS AUTOMOTIVE INC.; D & G BODY SHOP, INC.;
DON HINGLE’S BODY SHOP, INC.; STEVENS BODY & FENDER, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
M.J. FOSTER, JR., individually and in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Louisiana; RICHARD P. IEYOUB,
individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General of
the State of Louisiana; W.R. WHITTINGTON, Colonel, individually
and in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary and
Superintendent of the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, Office of State Police,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(99-CV-539-F)
--------------------
July 11, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges,
PER CURIAM:*
M.J. Foster, Jr., Richard P. Ieyoub, and Colonel W.R.
Whittington (“State Officials”) appeal the district court’s
denial of their motion to continue the pretrial conference and
trial in this proceeding until after the district court ruled on
their motion to dismiss the state law claims against them as

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-30927
- 2 -
barred by their Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunities. The
State Officials argue that the district court’s denial of their
motion to continue denied them the full protection of their
Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunities. The district court
has now ruled on the State Officials’ motion to dismiss without
requiring them to conduct extensive discovery before the ruling.
Because the State Officials have not shown that the district
court’s denial of their motion to continue is an appealable order
under the collateral order doctrine and because they have not
explained what relief the court could grant at this time, the
appeal of the district court’s denial of the motion to continue
IS DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --