From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilkins v. Am. Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Sep 30, 1968
401 F.2d 151 (2d Cir. 1968)

Opinion

No. 55, Docket 32367.

Argued September 18, 1968.

Decided September 30, 1968.

Donald S. Sherwood, New York City (Kenneth Heller, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.

William F. Norton, Jr., New York City (Foley, Grainger Darby, Walter A. Darby, Jr., Robert P. Whelan, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MOORE, FRIENDLY and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal by plaintiff Margaret Ann Wilkins, administratrix of the estate of her husband, a seaman, from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Harold R. Tyler, Jr., J., which denied plaintiff's motion to remand the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. There is no need to recount in detail the deplorable procedural maneuvers in this litigation to date, which include three complaints — one in a federal court, two in a state court — three appeals, various motions and failures to comply with orders of a court. Suffice it to say that plaintiff's counsel has indulged in much activity, but effective protection of the interests of the widow and children of decedent does not shine brightly through the record.

Although neither party noticed it, we brought to their attention at oral argument the question of appealability of an order denying a remand and gave them an opportunity for further briefing. As the Supreme Court said in Chicago, R.I. Pac. R.R. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 578, 74 S.Ct. 290, 293, 98 L.Ed. 317 (1954), "Obviously, such an order is not final and appealable if standing alone." See Lewis v. E.I. Du Pont, 183 F.2d 29, 21 A.L.R.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1950); 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 0.169 [2.3.] (2d ed. 1965). At argument, when apprised of the appealability issue, plaintiff's counsel orally requested permission to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus. But this case is a long way from presenting the "exceptional circumstances" that will "justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy." Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 273, 19 L.Ed. 2d 305 (1967).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Wilkins v. Am. Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Sep 30, 1968
401 F.2d 151 (2d Cir. 1968)
Case details for

Wilkins v. Am. Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Margaret Ann WILKINS, as Administratrix of the Estate of William Lane…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Sep 30, 1968

Citations

401 F.2d 151 (2d Cir. 1968)

Citing Cases

U.S. Tour Operators v. Trans World Airlines

In analogous contexts, preliminary rulings establishing the forum are not appealable, even though postponing…

Rohrer, Hibler Replogle, Inc. v. Perkins

An order denying a motion to remand a case to state court cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be…