Amie, et al v. City of Jennings

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 8, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 05-31137
_______________
MARTHA AMIE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
MARTHA AMIE; JACQUELINE BLANK; ELEANOR BEAL, KALANIE
BOURQUE, ALSO KNOWN AS KALANIE BOURQUE-NEWMAN; JOLYNNE
DEAVILLE, ALSO KNOWN AS JOLYNNE DEVILLE-CARTER; DEBORAH
ROBBINS; PRISCILLA WISE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
VERSUS
CITY OF JENNINGS, ETC., ET AL,
Defendant
CITY OF JENNINGS, AS THE MUNICIPALITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
SUPERVISION OF THE JENNINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
EMPLOYER OF ALL THE LISTED INDIVIDUALS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
m 2:03-CV-2011
______________________________

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eight female employees of the City of Jen-
nings Police Department sued the city and sev-
en other individual, alleging sexual harassment
resulting from an alleged hostile work
environment.1 After one employee voluntarily
settled her claim, the city moved to sever the
claims or for separate trials of each of the
individual plaintiff’s claims, arguing that the
claim of each plaintiff is separate and distinct
in its alleged facts, periods of time, alleged
harassers, and nature of harassment. The mo-
tion was denied, and this appeal followed.
“[O]rders granting or denying joinder are
not final. The same rule follows as to orders
having similar effects.”2 Although ordinarily
our appellate jurisdiction is limited under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 to reviewing final judgments, in
a limited class of cases interlocutory judgments
can be reviewed under the collateral order
doctrine. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). Courts have
consistently applied this doctrine “stringently
to assure that it does not swallow the general
rule.”3.
One of the necessary elements to appeal un-
der the collateral order doctrine is that an or-
der “effectively would be unreviewable on ap-
peal from a final judgment.”4 We have noted
in the past that orders allowing joinder are ef-
fectively reviewable on appeal after final
judgment,5 and the great weight of authority
from other circuits supports this conclusion.6
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published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.
1 As of this appeal, all defendants other than the
city have been dismissed.
2 15B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R.
MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
§ 3914.18, at 38-39 (2d ed. 1987) (citing Deckert
v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 290-
91 & n.4 (1940); Demelo v. Woolsey Marine In-
dus., 677 F.2d 1030, 1035 n.12 (5th Cir. 1982)).
3 19 JAMES W. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FED-
ERAL PRACTICE § 202.07[1], at 202-30 (Matthew
Bender 3d ed. 2006) (citing Will v. Hallock, 126 S.
Ct. 952 (2006)).
4 In Re Rupp & Bowman Co., 109 F.3d 237,
240 (5th Cir. 1997). See also Stringfellow v. Con-
cerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 375
(1949) (“[A] party seeking appeal must show that
all three requirements are satisfied . . . .”).
5 See Doleac v. Michalson, 264 F.3d 470, 477-
93 (5th Cir. 2001).
6 See Michelson v. Citicorp Nat. Servs., Inc.,
138 F.3d 508, 512 (3d Cir. 1998) (stating that “al-
though an order refusing or permitting the filing of
an amended complaint joining an additional party
is a discretionary action by the trial court and sub-
ject to appellate review as part of an ultimate final
judgment, the order itself is not appealable in iso-
lation.”) (citing Fowler v. Merry, 468 F.2d 242,
243 (10th Cir. 1972); Garber v. Randall, 477 F.2d
711, 715 (2d Cir. 1973) (“An order granting or de-
nying consolidation, or granting or denying sepa-
rate trials, is an ordinary, nonappealable interlocu-
tory order. Severance orders are the same. Such
orders are appealable only by certification and per-
mission under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).”) (citing 9 J.
MOORE, MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 10.13[8],
at 183 (2d ed. 1972)); Metalock Repair Serv. v.
Harman 216 F.2d 611, 611-12 (6th Cir. 1954).
Cf. Stringfellow, 480 U.S. at 375 (holding that
(continued...)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Moreover, the city has pointed to no factors
that render this case different from any other
multiple plaintiff employment law action.7
Because in this instance the order appealed
from is not final, and the collateral order
doctrine does not apply to an interlocutory
order denying severance of claims or separate
trials, we lack jurisdiction, so the appeal is
DISMISSED.
6(...continued)
permissive intervenor could not appeal denial of
and application to intervene as of right and the re-
strictions imposed on permissive intervention, be-
cause “it can obtain effective review of its claims
on appeal from the final judgment”).
7 Cf. Garber, 477 F.2d at 715-16 (relying on
unique considerations involving “the very area now
before us, consolidation of stockholders’ derivative
and class suits,” to allow immediate appeal of an
order consolidating multiple plaintiffs’ actions in a
single suit).

-- 3 of 3 --