Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. Basic Research, LLC

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

May 6, 2014

PAMELA MILLER; RANDY HOWARD; DONNA PATTERSON; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Intervenors-Defendants - Appellees,
v.
BASIC RESEARCH, LLC; DYNAKOR PHARMACAL, LLC; DENNIS GAY; DANIEL B. MOWREY, Ph.D.; MITCHELL K. FRIEDLANDER, Defendants - Appellants. and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH. (D.C. NO. 2:07-CV-00871-TS-DBP).

Christopher B. Sullivan, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. (Wesley D. Felix, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., and Jon V. Harper, Anderson & Karrenberg, with him on the opening brief, and Wesley D. Felix, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., and Richard D. Burbidge, Jefferson W. Gross, and Aida Neimarlija, Burbidge, Mitchell & Gross, with him on the reply brief) Salt Lake City, Utah, for Appellants.

Scott R. Shepherd, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Media, Pennsylvania (Kevin P. Roddy, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., Woodbridge, New Jersey, with him on the brief) for Appellees.

Before TYMKOVICH, O'BRIEN, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 1174

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

" Eat all you want and still lose weight," said the advertisement for a weight-loss supplement. Consumers who purchased the advertised product and were dissatisfied with the results filed a class action against the manufacturers for false advertising. The parties entered into mediation, where they drafted and signed a document outlining the terms of a settlement. They then informed the district court that the mediation had been successful and, over the following months, exchanged several drafts further documenting the settlement.

But the drafting hit a snag, and the defendants eventually informed the district court that they no longer intended to settle. The plaintiff class then filed a motion to enforce the settlement achieved at the mediation, and the district court granted that motion because it concluded the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement.

On appeal, the plaintiffs contest our interlocutory jurisdiction. The defendants challenge the merits of the district court's

Page 1175

conclusion that the parties had, in fact, reached a binding settlement.

We conclude that the case is an impermissible interlocutory appeal because no exceptions apply to the general rule that we must wait for a final judgment in the underlying case before exercising appellate jurisdiction. Finding that we lack jurisdiction, we DISMISS the appeal.

I. Background

Basic Research produces a weight-loss dietary supplement it calls Akävar 20/50. As part of the marketing campaign for the supplement, Basic and the other parties involved in the product's distribution advertised, among other things, " Eat all you want and still lose weight." A class of purchasers of the supplement who allege they relied on the marketing pitch and were dissatisfied with the results ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.