Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C., et al v. Darlene Hayne
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-60113 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: JLW , Judge: LHS , Judge: CH [17-60113]
Date Filed: 11/27/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of : DARLENE HAYNES
United States Court of Appeals
November 27, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
GREEN TREE SERVICING, L.L.C.; WALTER INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; BEST INSURORS, INCORPORATED;
MID STATE CAPITAL, L.L.C.; MID STATE TRUST II; MID STATE TRUST
III; MID STATE TRUST IV; MID STATE TRUST V; MID STATE TRUST VI;
MID STATE TRUST VII; MID STATE TRUST VIII; MID STATE TRUST IX;
MID STATE TRUST X; MID STATE TRUST XI; WILMINGTON TRUST
COMPANY; MID-STATE CAPITAL CORPORATION 2004-1 TRUST; MIDSTATE CAPITAL CORPORATION 2005-1 TRUST; MID-STATE CAPITAL
CORPORATION 2006-1 TRUST; MID-STATE CAPITAL TRUST 2010-1,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:16-CV-551
Before WIENER, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Date Filed: 11/27/2017
There are two separate but related lawsuits that are relevant in this
appeal. The first is the underlying suit brought by Appellant Darlene Haynes
against the Appellees and other entities and individuals. The second is a
separate action filed by the Appellees to compel Haynes to arbitrate the claims
she brought against them in the underlying lawsuit.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
entered a final judgment in the second lawsuit, compelling Haynes to arbitrate
her claims against the Appellees and staying the proceedings between the
parties in the underlying lawsuit. Haynes appealed.
We recently held that we lacked appellate jurisdiction over a district
court’s order that compelled arbitration and then stayed the proceedings in the
separate lawsuit between the parties. See Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v.
Charles, 872 F.3d 637, 638–40 (5th Cir. 2017).
We find no meaningful
distinction between this case and our recent decision.
We do not have jurisdiction over the district court’s final judgment
compelling arbitration because that judgment also stayed the substantive
claims in the underlying lawsuit between Haynes and the Appellees. See id.
at 639–40. The appeal is DISMISSED.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
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?