Narrative Opinion Summary
William A. Taccino and Marlene M. Taccino are appealing a district court order that granted motions to dismiss filed by LaSalle Bank National Association, Larry D. Richman, and Kenneth J. MacFadyen. However, the court determines it only has jurisdiction over final orders and certain interlocutory or collateral orders as defined by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The order in question is neither final nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as it does not resolve the case for all parties, leaving claims pending against Litton Loan Servicing, LP, and Miriam S. Fuchs. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and oral argument is deemed unnecessary as the relevant facts and legal issues are sufficiently reflected in the submitted materials.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed because the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given the non-finality of the order.
Reasoning: Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and oral argument is deemed unnecessary as the relevant facts and legal issues are sufficiently reflected in the submitted materials.
Finality of Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that the order being appealed did not resolve the case for all parties involved, and therefore, it was not a final order eligible for appeal.
Reasoning: The order in question is neither final nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as it does not resolve the case for all parties, leaving claims pending against Litton Loan Servicing, LP, and Miriam S. Fuchs.
Jurisdiction Over Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court assessed its jurisdiction to hear appeals and found it lacked the authority to review the order because it was neither final nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Reasoning: However, the court determines it only has jurisdiction over final orders and certain interlocutory or collateral orders as defined by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).