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

REVISED - May 20, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60192
JAY O. HOLLIS, Estate of
Deceased; INEZ C. HOLLIS,
Administratrix of the Estate
of Jay O. Hollis; JAY L. HOLLIS;
WILLIAM C. HOLLIS; SHELAH H.
PATTERSON; CANDACE H. JENKINS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
ET AL.,
Defendants,
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
April 29, 1998
Before JOLLY, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises from a case that probably should never
have been filed in the first place and most certainly should never
have been appealed to this court. Our review of that which has
been appealed by the estate, the administratrix, and the survivors
of the late Mr. Hollis (collectively, "Appellants"), reveals a

combination of issues that we either (1) have no jurisdiction to
consider because Appellants failed timely to file notices of
appeal, or (2) are so lacking in legal merit that they are
frivolous as a matter of law. Rather than affirming those rulings
of the district court over which we may exercise jurisdiction, we
dismiss this appeal as frivolous and order Appellants and their
counsel to show cause why damages and costs should not be imposed.
I
The decedent, Mr. Hollis, boarded American Airlines, Inc.'s
("American") Flight 675 bound for Jackson, Mississippi, on May 14,
1988, but suffered a heart attack while the flight was en route.
The flight attendants notified the aircraft's captain of the
situation and he received clearance for a "straight-in approach" at
Jackson International Airport. Emergency medical personnel boarded
the plane immediately upon its arrival at the terminal and began
attending to Mr. Hollis while the remaining twenty or so
passengers, who were all seated forward of the decedent,
disembarked through the front. After completing their initial
ministrations, the medical personnel assisted Mr. Hollis from the
plane via the rear stairway and into an awaiting ambulance on the
tarmac. Unfortunately, Mr. Hollis died some four days later in a
local Jackson hospital.
II
Appellants filed suit in April 1994 against American and
several other defendants. Eventually, the district court pared the
2

case down to one defendant--American--and three state tort claims.1
Appellants alleged that American: (1) negligently failed to request
priority landing clearance at Jackson, (2) negligently allowed the
other passengers to disembark before the deceased, and (3)
negligently failed to allow the ambulance to park near the aircraft
in Jackson. American sought dismissal of the three remaining
claims and the district court granted its motion for summary
judgment on March 7, 1997. Appellants timely appealed, attacking
several of the court's evidentiary rulings along with the court's
dismissal.2
III
A
Appellants' complaints implicating the striking of the three
affidavits and the curtailment of discovery are so lacking in merit
as to be legally frivolous. Appellants waived or forfeited any
right to complain about the striking of the McCrory affidavit by
failing to contest American's motion to strike it. It follows
that, inasmuch as the stricken McCrory affidavit formed the basis
of the Roitsch and Murgo affidavits, they surely could not stand.
1Appellants attempt to appeal two of the orders that performed
the paring work. The district court entered one order on May 11,
1995, and the second on April 29, 1996--both as final judgments
pursuant to Rule 54(b). Appellants did not file a notice of appeal
until after the district court's order of March 7, 1997, dismissing
the case. We thus are without jurisdiction to address either the
May 11, 1995, or the April 29, 1996 order. Fed.R.App.P. 3, 4.
2We review a grant of summary judgment de novo and the
district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
Folks v. Kirby Forest Indus., Inc., 10 F.3d 1173, 1181 (5th Cir.
1994); FDIC v. Myers, 955 F.2d 348, 349 (5th Cir. 1992).
3

The striking of those affidavits certainly does not constitute
abuse of discretion.
Similarly, the district court's curtailment of discovery does
not rise to the level of reversible abuse. The court's only
limitation on Appellants dealt with the scope of discovery. Even
a cursory look at the rulings of the district court regarding the
discovery sought and its relevance to the sole remaining claims in
the case eschews any possibility of abuse of discretion.
Appellants' appeals of the evidentiary and discovery rulings of the
district court are dismissed as frivolous.
B
We have reviewed the record as well as the rulings of the
district court and the arguments of counsel as advanced in their
appellate briefs and in their oral arguments to this panel. There
simply are no genuine issues of material fact regarding actions or
omissions for which they assert that American was responsible. It
is obvious beyond question that the various decisions and judgment
calls made on that fateful night, that Appellants accuse American
of having made negligently, were simply not made by American;
neither were they American's to make. Appellants' position on
appeal--arguing that American has liability for such decisions--is
so lacking in legal merit as to be frivolous as a matter of law.
Accordingly, we shall require Appellants and their counsel to
show cause why they should not be sanctioned for the costs of this
appeal, including attorneys' fees and expenses. They are therefore
ordered to file with the Clerk of this court, within fifteen (15)
4

days after the filing of this opinion, their joint statement, not
to exceed thirty (30) pages, advancing their reasons why we should
not impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38,
or our inherent power, or any other applicable source of authority
to do so. We invite American to submit for our edification, within
the same time period, a sworn list of attorneys' fees incurred in
connection with the instant appeal, detailing the reasonable hours
expended by counsel and reasonable hourly rates charged, plus other
direct costs incurred as appellee.
DISMISSED as frivolous at Appellants' cost; Appellants and Counsel
on appeal ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why sanction for frivolous appeal
should not be imposed.
5