Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Corporate Pines Realty Corp.


Download PDF
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Corporate Pines Realty Corp. Doc. 0 Case: 10-20118 Document: 00511180653 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED July 21, 2010 N o . 10-20118 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk C E R T A I N UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON, P la in t if f ­ A p p e lle e , v. C O R P O R A T E PINES REALTY CORP., D e fe n d a n t ­ A p p e lla n t , Y I G A L BOSCH, I n t e r e s t e d Party­Appellant. A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:06-CV-3361 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* C o r p o r a t e Pines Realty Corp. (Corporate Pines) and Yigal Bosch appeal t h e magistrate judge's final judgment and judgment of contempt. The m ag is t r a t e judge's judgment indicated personal liability for Bosch and sentenced Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-20118 Document: 00511180653 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 No. 10-20118 B o s c h to 20 days' confinement for contempt. Bosch maintains that he did not c o n s e n t to the authority of the magistrate judge. As such, the magistrate judge's o r d e r of contempt must be appealed to the district court, not the court of appeals, u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(7). We thus lack jurisdiction to hear Bosch's claims, a n d we DISMISS his appeal. Corporate Pines, on the other hand, consented to trial by the magistrate ju d g e , so we have jurisdiction to hear its appeal. Corporate Pines makes no a r g u m e n t that the magistrate judge erred with respect to its rights. Its a r g u m en ts are confined to assertions that the magistrate judge improperly found B o s c h in contempt. Because Corporate Pines makes no argument that its rights w e r e violated, we AFFIRM the magistrate judge's judgment as to Corporate P in e s . 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?