St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, No. 12-2585 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Telephone Communications Protection Act. Denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the case as moot, due to a settlement offer, is not a collateral order, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2585 ___________________________ St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, LLC lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: February 15, 2013 Filed: February 28, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. (Heart Center) brought this suit against Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, LLC (Jackson), alleging violations of the Telephone Communications Protection Act. Jackson moved to dismiss, arguing that it had made a full settlement offer to Heart Center, and therefore, although the offer had been rejected, the case was moot. The district court1 denied the motion to dismiss, as well as Jackson s ensuing motions for reconsideration and to certify the question for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). This appeal followed, in which Jackson argues that appellate jurisdiction exists under the collateral-order doctrine.2 Having carefully reviewed the parties appellate submissions, we conclude that the denial of Jackson s motion to dismiss the case as moot, due to a settlement offer, is not a collateral order. See Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867-69 (1994) (collateral-order doctrine comprises only district court decisions that are conclusive, resolve important questions completely separate from merits, and would render such important questions effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment; conditions for collateral-order are stringent and exception is narrow ; holding that right to avoid trial negotiated in private settlement agreement could be adequately vindicated on appeal from final judgment). As a result, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 Jackson also moves to stay the appeal pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in another case. Given our disposition of this appeal, we do not reach Jackson s motion. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
