Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 00-40337
_______________
MATTHEWS SMITH; JOHN COMEAUX; JOHN LUMPKINS;
KENNETH FORD; AND DARLENE GREENE; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
VERSUS
TEXACO, INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,

ARAMCO SERVICES COMPANY; SAUDI REFINING, INC.;
SHELL OIL COMPANY; STAR ENTERPRISE; TEXACO, INC.;
TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INCORPORATED;
AND TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING EAST, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
_________________________
February 1, 2002
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DeMOSS,
AND TO DISMISS PETITION FOR
Circuit Judges.
REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
(opinion 263 F.3d 394 (5th Cir.
August 22, 2001))
The defendants filed, on January 3, 2002,
an unopposed motion "to dismiss all pro-

ceedings before this Honorable Court," and
contemporaneously with this order, the judge
specifically to dismiss the petition for rehearing
or judges who have held the mandate are
en banc. The motion presumably is filed
releasing that hold.
pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 42 and 5TH CIR.
R. 42. The motion states, in its text and as
IT IS ORDERED that the opinion of this
reflected in an attached judgment of the dis-
court, issued as the judgment on August 22,
trict court entered on November 19, 2001, that
2001, is WITHDRAWN. See Smith v. Tex-
the parties have settled all claims and contro-
aco, Inc., 263 F.3d 394 (5th Cir. 2001). Be-
versies and that the district court has approved
cause the district court has dismissed, with
the settlement and has dismissed all claims
prejudice, all claims in the underlying action,
with prejudice. The funds agreed to in settle-
that court's order of March 7, 2000, certifying
ment have been paid. No party requested va-
the class, which is the subject of this appeal
catur of the panel opinion as a condition of the
under FED. R. APP. P. 23(f), is hereby
settlement. See generally U.S. Bancorp Mort-
VACATED. See Smith v. Texaco, Inc., 88 F.
gage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513
Supp. 2d 663 (E.D. Tex. 2000). We leave in
U.S. 18 (1994).
place the November 19, 2001, final judgment
of the district court, approving the settlement
As the motion to dismiss states, the set-
and its settlement class and dismissing all
tlement became final on December 19, 2001.
claims with prejudice.
Pending at that time was plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing en banc, filed on October 3, 2001.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the un-
As reflected in the public docket sheet, the
opposed motion to dismiss all proceedings in
mandate of this court had been held by one or
this court , treated as a motion to dismiss the
more judges, although when the motion to
appeal and to dismiss the petition for rehearing
dismiss was filed, no judge had requested that
en banc, is GRANTED.
the court be polled on rehearing en banc. On
November 16, 2001, the court had requested
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
defendants to file a response to the en banc
petition.
The motion to dismiss thus was filed under
somewhat unusual circumstances. No provi-
sion of the Federal Rules of Appellate Pro-
cedure or the local rules of this court speci-
fically addresses the instant situation. We con-
clude, however, that 5TH CIR. R. 42.1 does not
authorize the clerk to enter an order of dis-
missal while the mandate has been held, be-
cause that rule states in part that the clerk shall
enter the order of dismissal "as the mandate."
We need not address whether the panel may
enter an order of dismissal on an unopposed
motion while the mandate is held, because,
2