Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local 19 Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Herre Bros., Inc. Appellant/cross-Appellee
Docket: 97-7552
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; December 29, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves a dispute between the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local 19 (the Union) and Herre Bros. Inc. regarding the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement from 1995. Herre Bros. sought to revoke its bargaining rights with the Sheet Metal Contractors Association of Central Pennsylvania (SMCA) to avoid being bound by the Union's agreement. The Union sued, asserting that Herre Bros. was indeed bound to the 1995 agreement. The district court ruled in favor of the Union, granting summary judgment that Herre Bros. was bound by the agreement despite its revocation of bargaining rights. Following a damages trial, the court ordered Herre Bros. to pay $325,203.98 and mandated specific performance of the agreement until its expiration in 1998. Herre Bros. appealed these decisions, maintaining its position that revocation of bargaining rights should exempt it from the agreement, while the Union cross-appealed, claiming damages were incorrectly assessed by excluding lost wages. The appeals also raised a jurisdictional question regarding their validity. The original summary judgment noted that Herre Bros.' actions after withdrawing from the SMCA invalidated its revocation of bargaining rights.
The appeal in case No. 97-7450 established that the August 27 Order was not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as it did not resolve the damages issues and postponed judgment entry. However, the directive for specific performance was deemed immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), leading to an affirmation of the district court's decision. Subsequent to the August 27 Order, two additional district court orders were issued: the first on September 19, 1997, which stayed the specific performance aspect of the August 27 Order pending appeal and attempted to amend previous orders; and the second on September 23, 1997, which corrected clerical errors in the September 19 Order. Both parties filed notices of appeal, framing the September orders as final judgments. The current decision addresses whether these orders grant jurisdiction over the damages issue raised in the Union's cross-appeals. It is noted that a notice of appeal typically confers jurisdiction to the appellate court, while not affecting the district court's control over unappealable orders. Exceptions exist where the district court retains authority to issue certain orders, correct clerical mistakes, or affect the record on appeal.
The August 27, 1997 Order was properly appealable as an interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the September 19, 1997 Order, except for the part that stayed specific performance. The stay pending appeal is valid, but the rest of the September 19 Order is void due to lack of jurisdiction. Although the September 23 Order aimed to correct a clerical mistake in the September 19 Order, it is also void for the same jurisdictional reasons. Thus, there is no final judgment available for the appeals and cross-appeals, prompting their dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Notably, the court correctly stayed the accounting and damages briefing directed by the August 27 Order.
