Douglas Attridge and Margaret Attridge and Ludwig Heinz Andevelyn Heinz, Plaintiffs, v. Johns-manville, Amatex, Unarco, Carey Canada, Celotex,fibre-board, Keene, Owens-illinois,pittsburgh-corning and Raymark, Defendants,eagle-picher Industries, Inc., Defendant/third-partyplaintiff/appellant, v. United States of America, Third-party Defendant/appellee.margie Armstrong, Plaintiff, v. Johns-manville, Defendant,eagle-picher Industries, Inc., Defendant/third-partyplaintiff/appellant, v. United States of America, Third-party Defendant/appellee, 889 F.2d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseBefore RICH, Circuit Judge, NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge,* and ARCHER, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
ARCHER, Circuit Judge.
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (Eagle-Picher) and the United States have submitted a joint request for an "order to deal with jurisdictional problems."
Briefly, the parties state that they mistakenly believed that these appeals included claims under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2). However, they recently discovered that the complaints filed in the district court did not include such claims. They suggest several procedures to remedy the situation.
We have reviewed the parties' submission and decline to follow the suggestions presented. We determine that the most appropriate course is to transfer these appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The United States' and Eagle-Picher's suggestions are denied.
(2) The court hereby transfers these cases to the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Judge Nichols sat to hear argument but, by reason of illness, did not participate further in the case
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
