Appellate Decisions

A Lack of Finality Despite a Final Judgment

In two recent appeals, courts held that a purported final judgment was defective—and no final decision existed—due to unresolved crossclaims.

March 18, 2024

By Bryan Lammon

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

recent posts

No Perlman Appeals When the Same Issues Could Be Raised via Contempt
The Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant cannot take a Perlman appeal when the claimant could have raised the same issues via its own contempt appeal.
A Rule 4 Conflict: The Prison-Mailbox Rule v. the Mistaken-Filing Rule
The Fifth Circuit held that when an imprisoned appellant mistakenly mails a notice of appeal to the court of appeals, the notice is deemed filed when deposited in the prison mail system.
The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: September 2024
Another split on pure Bivens appeals, no equitable exceptions for Rule 4(a)(4), another failure to apply the Rule 3(c) amendments, and more.
Serving, Filing, and Equitable Exceptions to Rule 4(a)(4)
The Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the appeal clock. The court added that Rule 4(a)(4) does not allow for equitable exceptions and addressed an order-designation issue, too.
Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and Tenth Circuits in rejecting pure Bivens appeals. But like those courts, the Ninth’s decision was split.

related posts

Appeals After Unresolved Claims & Theories
Has a district court issued a final decision if it overlooked one of the parties’ claims? Courts seem to disagree. But the best answer might be that these oversights implicate the adequacy of the judgment, not finality.
Reconsidering a Prior Panel’s Jurisdiction
In a subsequent appeal from the same action, the Sixth Circuit vacated a prior panel decision after concluding that the panel lacked appellate jurisdiction.
Counts & Claims for Rule 54(b) Appeals
The Eleventh Circuit explained that different counts are not distinct claims for purposes of Rule 54(b) when they stem from the same events and seek a remedy for the same injury.
The Timeliness of a Rule 54(b) Partial Judgment
The Seventh Circuit held that there was no jurisdictional time limit on seeking a Rule 54(b) partial judgment. And it questioned earlier decisions imposing a 30-day deadline (albeit a non-jurisdictional, claims-processing one) on those requests.
Avoiding—but Not Disarming—the Finality Trap
Rather than disarm the finality trap, the Fifth Circuit found a way to avoid it: an odd, unintuitive, and unnecessary use of Rule 54(b).