Appellate Decisions

Appealable Orders, Not Appealable Documents

Just because the entirety of an “order” is appealable does not mean that other orders in the same document are appealable, too.

August 5, 2023

By Bryan Lammon

Courts have held that when an “order” is appealable—say, via a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)’s bar on remand appeals—the entirety of the district court’s order is within the scope of appeal. So when a district court certifies an order for an immediate appeal under § 1292(b), the entire order is within the scope of appeal, not just the issue that the district court thought warranted review. And when a case is removed on one of the grounds that § 1447(d) excepts from the general bar on remand appeals, the entire remand order is appealable, not just the excepted ground.

In Boshears v. PeopleConnect, Inc., the Ninth Circuit noted that there are limits on what it means for an “order” to be appealable. There’s a difference between orders and the documents that contain them. So even if an order is appealable, other orders contained in the same document are not.

The Two Orders in Boshears

The defendant in Boshears sought two forms of relief. First, the defendant sought an order compelling arbitration. Alternatively, it moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court denied both.

The defendant then appealed. And in that appeal, it sought review of both the arbitration and dismissal decisions.

The Argument for Including the Motion-to-Dismiss Denial

The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction over the arbitration denial under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a), which permits appeals from “an order” that (among other things) denies a petition to seek arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

As for the motion-to-dismiss denial, the defendant argued that it was in the same “order” as the arbitration denial and thus within the scope of appeal. The defendant found support for this argument in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City of Baltimore. That case involved an appeal from a remand order, which 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) generally prohibits. But § 1447(d) contains an exception for “an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443.” In BP, the Supreme Court held that if a defendant invokes either § 1442 or § 1443 in removing a case, the defendant can appeal a remand order and obtain review of all proffered grounds for removal. That’s because the exception allows for review of the “order” remanding the action. Review of a remand order thus means review of the propriety of the remand, not just some of the proffered bases for removal that the district court rejected in the course of remanding.

Distinguishing Orders & Documents

But there’s a difference, the Ninth Circuit explained, between an “order” and a “document”:

An “order” refers to a “written direction or command,” not to the document in which that “direction or command” is “delivered by a court or judge” to the parties.

So a single document can contain multiple orders, “particularly when a party requests multiple forms of relief at the same time.” Resolution of each request is a separate order—that is, a separate written direction or command. Those orders do not become a single order from their inclusion in a single document.

As for BP, the case’s reasoning suggests only that § 16(a) appeals encompass “all of the reasoning in an order denying a motion to compel arbitration.” The motion to dismiss had nothing to do with the denial of arbitration. So the motion-to-dismiss denial was not within the scope of the appeal.

Boshears v. PeopleConnect, Inc., 2023 WL 4940430 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2023), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw

recent posts

The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: October 2024
A wide variety of discovery appeals. Plus the prison-mailbox/mistaken-filing rule, appealing the Yearsley doctrine, and more.
Finality in § 1782 Proceedings
The Ninth Circuit held that a discovery order under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 was not appealable until the district court resolved any objections to the discovery request.
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.

related posts

An Unnecessary Discourse on Reviewing Personal Jurisdiction in Arbitration Appeals
The Fifth Circuits said that it could review a personal-jurisdiction defense as part of an arbitration appeal. But it didn't need to.
No Remand Appeals in Naturalization Proceedings
The Fourth Circuit applied the administrative-remand rule to a district court order that remanded a long-pending naturalization application to the Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Appealing Waiver-Based Remands
The courts of appeals have split on whether they can review a remand order based on waiver, and the Fifth Circuit doubts that it’s on the correct side.
The End of Arbitration + Dismissal Appeals?
The Supreme Court held that a district court cannot dismiss an action instead of issuing a stay when the district court orders arbitration a party requests a stay.
Frivolous Federal-Officer Removal
The Seventh Circuit suggested that an invocation of federal-officer removal—which permitted a plenary appeal from a remand order—was frivolous and thus sanctionable.