descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Lorraine Jerome, Casey Marlin, James Pesek, Thelma Lueoma, Michael Skerbinc, Vel Thomas, Devone Schintgen, Connie Johnson, Eleanor Homsey, Dorothy Haddon, Eva Narveson, Thomas Fetty v. Smithkline Beckman Corporation, Philip J. Tannenbaum, Theodore Selby, A, B, C, Individually, X, Y, Z, as Business Entities

Citations: 842 F.2d 208; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3450Docket: 87-5302

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; March 20, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal by Lorraine Jerome and other appellants against SmithKline Beckman Corporation following a district court's dismissal of one count from their complaint and claims from four appellants due to improper venue. The appellants alleged various injuries due to SmithKline's drug, Selacryn, citing negligence, strict liability, and other statutory violations, including RICO. The district court dismissed the RICO claim and venue-related claims without certifying the order for an immediate appeal. SmithKline contended that the appeal was premature under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as the order did not represent a final decision. The appellants attempted to invoke the collateral order exception, arguing separability and distinct jurisdictional issues of the RICO claim. However, the court found the appellants' arguments insufficient and determined that the criteria of unreviewability were not met. Additionally, the court suggested mandamus as a potential remedy for the venue-dismissed appellants. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as premature, upholding the district court's decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Collateral Order Exception to the Final Judgment Rule

Application: The court assessed whether the dismissal of the RICO claim and venue-based claims qualified under the collateral order exception but found that they did not satisfy the criteria for unreviewability.

Reasoning: The court evaluated whether the appeal could be considered under the collateral order exception, which requires that the order conclusively determine a disputed issue, be completely separable from the merits, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal.

Final Decision Rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Application: The court determined that the district court's order was not a final decision, thus the appeal was dismissed as premature.

Reasoning: SmithKline filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the order was not a final decision as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Mandamus as a Remedy for Venue Issues

Application: The court noted that mandamus could serve as an alternative remedy for appellants whose claims were dismissed due to improper venue.

Reasoning: Furthermore, the court noted that mandamus could be an available remedy for the dismissed appellants regarding the venue issue.