U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1964

Joseph S. Robbin v. The American University, a Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 5, 1964 · Edgerton, Fahy, Per Curiam, Wright

330 F.2d 225; 117 U.S. App. D.C. 351; 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6139 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Alfred M. Schwartz, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Albert A. Rapoport, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Thomas M. Raysor, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Byron K. Welch, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee., Messrs. Leland T. Johnson, Jr., and John H. Myers, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of The American Council on Education, as amicus curia, urging affirmance.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Build of Buffalo, Inc. v. Frank A. Sedita, as Mayor and Chief Executive of the City of Buffalo (2d Cir. 1971)
J. B. L. Construction Co. v. Lincoln Homes Corp. (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
Max S. Gumer v. Shearson, Hammill & Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1974)
Gumer v. Shearson, Hammill & Co. (2d Cir. 1974)
Frederick C. Zangardi v. Walter N. Tobriner (D.C. Cir. 1964)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s complaint against The American University and certain individuals who are members of its staff is based upon alleged acts of the individuals. The District Court dismissed the complaint “as to the defendant American University only” and declined to dismiss it as to the individuals. The court expressly “determined * * * that there is no just reason for delay of the entry of final *226 judgment” and ordered final judgment to be entered as to the University.

We think the court erred. At least one of the possible decisions of this appeal might in effect decide appellant’s claims against the defendant members of the University’s staff. Those claims have not been and should be decided in the first instance by the District Court. We therefore apply the Supreme Court’s statement in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 437, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297, that an abuse of discretion by the District Court in acting under F.R.Civ.P. Rule 54(b) is reviewable by the Court of Appeals.

The appealed judgment will be set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings. The District Court will have full control over the entire case, including appellant’s claims against all defendants, until final judgment is entered as to all. Cf. Zangardi v. Tobriner, 117 U.S.App.D.C. -, 330 F.2d 224.

Remanded for further proceedings.

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