Unpublished Dispositiondonald Z. Barney, et al.; Plaintiffs,myron Clemens; Gerald E. Dunn; Jack Einhardt; Andrewfiggures, Jr.; Jack Harnden; William G. Mills; Danielmoon; Darrell D. Pifer; Owen L. Sult; Fred C. Swanson;gerald D. Titus; Morris Fullerton; John Perkins; Robertpontius; Dwight Stephenson; Douglas Thiel; Donald W.milligan, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Clark Equipment Company, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-appellee, 883 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1989)

ORDER

Seventeen of the plaintiffs appeal an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. This action was brought by 126 plaintiffs who allege the defendant's decision to close its plant in Battle Creek, Michigan, violated the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. Secs. 37.2201 et seq., and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. The seventeen plaintiffs who seek to bring this appeal were dismissed on the defendant's motion on grounds they had signed releases of their claims.

Absent certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., an order disposing of fewer than all parties or claims in an action is nonappealable. William B. Tanner Co. v. United States, 575 F.2d 101, 102 (6th Cir. 1978) (per curiam). The district court's opinion and order contain no such certification for an interlocutory appeal.

It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed sua sponte for lack of an appealable order, without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to appeal from the final judgment. Rule 9(b), Local Rules of the Sixth Circuit.