United States Eleventh Circuit

In an environmental and tort suit over the operations of a junkyard, denial of plaintiff's motion to show cause as to why defendant had not implemented a legally sufficient Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is affirmed where there was an effort to comply with the court order. Denial of plaintiff's motion to show cause as to why defendant had not obtained a solid waste handling permit is reversed where district courts do not have the power to modify or revise an appellate order, and the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where the court had the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims, and none of the factors enumerated in 28 U.S.C. 1367(c) were persuasively present.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/24/2006
• Published 10/24/2006

Judges

• FAY, Circuit Judge:, Before BIRCH, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Holly Page Cole, Donald D. Stack, Martin Arthur Shelton, Stack & Associates, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Kerry F. Nelson, Barbara H. Gallo, Scott E. Hitch, Balch & Bingham, LLP, Daniel Herbert Sherman, IV, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.