213177P.pdf   07/19/2023  City of Burnsville  v.  Koppers, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  21-3177
                          and No:  21-3179
                          and No:  21-3181
                          and No:  21-3182
                          and No:  21-3183
                          and No:  21-3185
                          and No:  21-3186
                          and No:  21-3187
                          and No:  21-3191
                          and No:  21-3193
                          and No:  21-3194
                          and No:  21-3287
                          and No:  21-3302
                          and No:  21-3305
                          and No:  21-3311
                          and No:  21-3309
                          and No:  21-3312
                          and No:  21-3308
                          and No:  21-3315
                          and No:  21-3307
                          and No:  21-3316
                          and No:  21-3317
                          and No:  21-3318
                          and No:  21-3303
                          and No:  21-3320
                          and No:  21-3304
                          and No:  21-3323
                          and No:  21-3292
                          and No:  21-3325
                          and No:  21-3300
                          and No:  21-3326
                          and No:  21-3324
                          and No:  21-3313
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Kelly and Kobes, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case. Several Minnesota cities filed this suit alleging the 
   defendants who refined coal tar ("refiners") or used the refined coal tar 
   to make asphalt sealer ("manufacturers") had contaminated the cities' 
   stormwater ponds. The district court dismissed all of the claims against 
   the refiner defendants and most of the claims against the manufacturers; 
   the cities then filed a Rule 54(b) motion for entry of final judgment 
   against the refiners, but the district court denied the motion based on 
   its finding that the cities had not shown a danger of hardship or 
   injustice unless an immediate appeal was granted; the cities then entered 
   into an agreement to dismiss their remaining claims against the 
   manufacturers on the condition that if this court were to reverse the 
   district court's dismissal of the claims against the refiner defendants, 
   the cities could reinstate their claim against the manufacturers, and the 
   statute of limitations would be tolled. Held: this conditional dismissal 
   of the cities' claims against the manufacturers did not create a final 
   decision under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and the appeal must be dismissed for 
   lack of jurisdiction. Judge Kelly, dissenting.