En Banc Argument in the Fifth Circuit’s Zombie Action
Update: For my full post on the argument in Williams, see The Fifth Circuit & the Finality Trap.
The en banc Fifth Circuit heard argument this morning in Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. The case addresses the finality and appealability of an action when some claims have been decided on the merits but others have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Williams has involved multiple trips to the Fifth Circuit. In Williams I, a panel held that plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed their outstanding claims could not appeal the claims that they had lost on the merits; the voluntary dismissal without prejudice precluded the district court’s decision from being final. And in Williams II, when the plaintiffs tried to fix this by returning to the district court and changing their dismissal to be one with prejudice, a second panel held that the district court could not do so because district court proceedings were done. So the case was over and unchangeable in the district court but not final for purposes of appeal.
For more on the litigation and the underlying problem in Williams, see my post from last summer: The Fifth Circuit Creates a Zombie Action.
Williams I: Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., 748 F. App’x 584 (5th Cir. 2018), available at Google Scholar and Westlaw.
Williams II: Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., 935 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2019), available at Google Scholar and Westlaw.
Oral Argument Recording, Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., No. 18-31159 (consolidated with 18-31161).
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
Federal courts of appeals have spent a lot of energy determining whether litigants can appeal after a dismissal without prejudice. Some courts have declared that these dismissals are final decisions and thus generally appealable. And some courts—sometimes the same courts, albeit in different opinions—announce the opposite rule: that dismissals without prejudice are not generally appealable. […]
Continue reading....
I have a new article on appeals from voluntary dismissals after an adverse interlocutory decision.
Continue reading....
Earlier this year, the Eleventh Circuit reiterated its rule that litigants cannot voluntarily dismiss individual claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). That portion of the rule permits plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss “an action without a court order.” So plaintiffs can dismiss only entire actions under Rule 41(a)(1), and attempts to dismiss individual claims […]
Continue reading....
In In re Esteva, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal after concluding that a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) voluntary dismissal was ineffective. The stipulated dismissal purported to dismiss all unresolved claims. But according to the Eleventh Circuit, that’s not allowed—Rule 41(a)(1)(A) permits the voluntary dismissal of only entire actions, not individual claims. With the voluntary dismissal ineffective, […]
Continue reading....
I’ve written a lot on this site about the finality trap in the last few years. Now I’ve published an essay on the trap in the New York University Law Review Online. I argue that the trap is asinine. And there’s an easy fix to it: let litigants disclaim the right to refile voluntarily dismissed […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....