A Lack of Finality Despite a Final Judgment
The classic definition of a “final decision” is one that ends litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but enforce the judgment. So when a district court enters what it calls a “final judgment” and closes a case, it would seem that a final decision exists. But what if the district court (and the parties) have overlooked one or more claims?
In two recent cases—Shipman v. Aquatherm L.P. and Amerisure Insurance Co. v. Auchter Co.—courts of appeals held that the existence of unresolved crossclaims precluded a final decision, despite the district court’s entry of a judgment.
Finality & Unresolved Claims
In both cases, the district courts had resolved some of the claims (presumably the ones the parties cared about most). But those courts had not expressly disposed of some crossclaims. The district courts nevertheless each entered a judgment and considered the actions finished. And the aggrieved parties appealed.
The courts of appeals dismissed these appeals for a lack of appellate jurisdiction. The explanation was simple. A final decision generally does not exist until the district court resolves all claims. In both Shipman and Amerisure Insurance, the district court had not resolved all claims. Nor had the district courts entered a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). And the entry of a judgment was insufficient to create a final decision; the district courts had to actually dispose of all claims.
Final If Finished
These decisions are consistent with the predominant approach to finality: there is no final decision until all claims are resolved. But I’m not sure I agree with this approach when the district court has resolved some claims and thinks that it is done with the action.
To be sure, the district court’s judgment is defective—it did not resolve one or more of the parties’ claims. But that’s a problem with the district court’s resolution of the action, not the finality of the district court’s decision. And it’s a problem that parties with overlooked claims can raise. That is, a party with an unresolved claim could move to alter or reopen the judgment. Or that party can raise the oversight on appeal. And failure to object to the district court’s overlooking a claim could be treated as an abandonment of that claim.
This isn’t to say that a district court can simply make a decision final by declaring it so. It means only that once the district court is finished, a final decision exists. At that point, aggrieved litigants can appeal and raise any objection to the district court’s resolution of the action. Switching to this “final if finished” approach to finality might seriously simplify this overly complicated area of law.
A Note on Abandoning Claims at Oral Argument
One last note: in Amerisure Insurance, the Eleventh Circuit said that it would not allow a party to fix the finality problem by abandoning the unresolved claims at oral argument. Other courts have allowed litigants to do so. But the Eleventh Circuit doubted that this abandonment at oral argument was permissible. And even if it was, the court declined to accept the abandonment.
Shipman v. Aquatherm L.P., 2024 WL 957981 (3d Cir. Mar. 6, 2024), available at the Third Circuit and Westlaw
Amerisure Insurance Co. v. Auchter Co., 2024 WL 980089 (11th Cir. Mar. 7, 2024), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw
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
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....
The general, well-known, and riddled-with-exceptions rule is that a decision is not final until the district court has resolved all of the parties’ claims. So what should courts do when the district court overlooks a claim or theory of relief that one of the parties had pleaded? A handful of recent decisions have raised this […]
Continue reading....
In RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over a prior appeal in an action. The court accordingly vacated the prior panel’s decision. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this before. And while it might be an okay practice in appeals from the same action (though I […]
Continue reading....
In Scott v. Advanced Pharmaceutical Consultants, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit reversed the entry of a partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The district court had resolved most (but not all) of the counts pleaded in the plaintiff’s complaint. But the district court’s rejection of those counts did not resolve a distinct “claim” […]
Continue reading....
When an action involves multiple claims, appeals normally must wait until the district court has resolved all of claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is one exception to this general rule. It permits a district court to enter a partial judgment on the resolution of some (but not all) claims in an action. That […]
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....