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

))))))))))))))))))))))))
No. 97-30866
))))))))))))))))))))))))
PHYLLIS ROMAGUERA; ET AL
Plaintiffs,
V.
PHYLLIS ROMAGUERA
Plaintiff -Appellee,
v.
JON GEGENHEIMER, Clerk of Court, 24th Judicial District, Court Ex
Officio Recorder of Mortgages and Conveyances, Parish of Jefferson,
State of Louisiana; ET AL
Defendants
JON GEGENHEIMER, Clerk of Court, 24th Judicial District Court, Ex
Officio Recorder of Mortgages and Conveyances, Parish of Jefferson,
State of Louisiana
Defendant - Appellant
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
March 5, 1999
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion 12/24/98, 5 Cir., ________, ________ F.3d ________)
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc BY APPELLANT JON
GEGENHEIMER as a Petition for Panel Rehearing, the Petition for
Panel Rehearing is DENIED. No member of the Panel nor judge in
regular active service of the court having requested that the court
be polled on Rehearing En Banc (FED.R.APP.P. and 5th CIR. R.35), the
petition for Rehearing En Banc by BY APPELLANT JOH GEGENHEIMER is
DENIED.
However, to clarify the opinion, we are substituting the last
paragraph on page 6 with the following paragraph.
We hold that the district court's acknowledgment of
Romaguera's request served to notify opposing counsel of
the request, thereby satisfying Congress' intended
purpose under Rule 54(d)(2). Had the district court
refrained from giving the impression that a hearing would
be scheduled by the court, Romaguera would have been
required to file the motion under Rule 54(d)(2). As a
consequence of the court's acknowledgment of the request,
together with its indication in its order that a hearing
would be held thereon, however, a filing was not needed
and the subsequent filing by Romaguera simply served as
a reminder to the court that it had failed to set a
hearing date.