# Brown v. GA Comm of Insurance

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · December 30, 1996 · 105 F.3d 656

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11067

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 30, 1996
- **Citations:** 105 F.3d 656
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11067

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________

No. 96-30575
_____________________________

VYRON L. BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEORGIA COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, ET AL.

Defendants,

INTEGON INDEMNITY CORPORATION
Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
( 95-CV-267 )
_________________________________________________________________

December 26, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

Vyron Brown brought this action for damages under a bid bond

which Integon had issued to Brown so that Brown could bid on a

government contract. Because Brown owed Integon approximately

$3500.00, guaranteed by a promissory note, Integon refused to issue

further bonds necessary for Brown to begin work. Integon

*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
counterclaimed on the promissory note and moved for summary

judgment on Brown’s contract claim. The district court granted

summary judgment dismissing Brown’s contract claim. But, neither

the Order Granting Summary Judgment nor the ensuing Judgment

disposed of Integon’s counterclaim. The district court made no

FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) “express determination that there is no just

reason for delay”, allowing appeal of the contract claim before the

counterclaim was addressed.

In the absence of an express determination that there is no

just reason for delay, the dismissal of complaint by summary

judgment, which does not dispose of a counterclaim, does not

constitute an appealable final order. Belmont Place Associates v.

Blyth, Eastman, Dillon and Co., Inc, 565 F.2d 1322, 1322-23 (5th

Cir. 1978); see also Johnson v. McDole, 526 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.

1976). The summary judgment order acknowledges Integon’s

counterclaim, but does not dispose of it. We therefore have no

jurisdiction over this appeal.

DISMISSED

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11067. Public record. Not legal advice.