U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2013

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, LLC

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, LLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided February 28, 2013 · Wollman, Bowman, Gruender
499 F. App'x 626

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, LLC

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. (Heart Center) brought this suit against Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, LLC (Jackson), alleging violations of the Telephone Communications Protection Act. Jackson moved to dismiss, arguing that it had made a full settlement offer to Heart Center, and therefore, although the offer had been rejected, the case was moot. The district court 1 denied the motion to dismiss, as well as Jackson’s ensuing motions for reconsideration and to certify the question for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). This appeal followed, in which Jackson argues that appellate jurisdiction exists under the collateral-order doctrine. 2

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ appellate submissions, we conclude that the denial of Jackson’s motion to dismiss the case as moot, due to a settlement offer, is not a collateral order. See Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867-69, 114 S.Ct. 1992, 128 L.Ed.2d 842 (1994) (collateral-order doctrine comprises only district court decisions that are conclusive, resolve important questions completely separate from merits, and would render such important questions effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment; conditions for collateral-order are “stringent” and exception is “narrow”; holding that “right to avoid trial” negotiated in private settlement agreement could be adequately vindicated on appeal from final judgment). As a result, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. Jackson also moves to stay the appeal pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in another case. Given our disposition of this appeal, we do not reach Jackson’s motion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.