Appealing to Invoke a Non-Party’s Immunity?
In McEvoy v. Diversified Energy Co., the Fourth Circuit dismissed a somewhat convoluted invocation of sovereign immunity. The defendants appealed to argue that a district court’s Rule 19 decision effectively denied a non-party’s sovereign immunity. But the defendant had never itself sought immunity. Nor had the actual immunity holder intervened to protect its interests. The motion was instead only a decision that a state agency was not a party that should be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
The Sovereign-Immunity Issue in McEvoy
McEvoy was an environmental suit concerning the cleanup of abandoned oil and gas wells. The defendants, who were current and former owners of the wells, moved for judgment on the pleadings. They argued that the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection was a party that must be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. They further argued that because sovereign immunity barred joining the Department, dismissal of the action warranted.
The district court denied the motion. It determined that the Department was not a party that needed to be joined. The district court could award the plaintiffs damages on their tort claims without implicating the Department’s interests.
No Rule 19/Sovereign-Immunity Appeal
The defendants then tried to appeal the denial of their motion. To justify the immediate appeal, they relied on the rule that denials of state sovereign immunity are immediately appealable.
The Fourth Circuit pointed out the obvious: no defendant had ever sought—and thus no defendant had ever been denied—sovereign immunity. The district court instead decided only whether the Department needed to be joined. In doing so, the district court did not rule on the Department’s immunity. Nor had the Department intervened to invoke immunity. So the rule permitting sovereign-immunity appeals did not apply.
The Fourth Circuit further explained that the order was not appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. That doctrine permits appeals from orders that (1) conclusively resolve an issue, (2) present an important issue that is separate from the merits, and (3) would be effectively unreviewable in an appeal from a final judgment. And the district court’s Rule 19 decision was neither separate from the merits nor unreviewable in a final-judgment appeal.
A Warning About Tacked-On Mandamus Requests
The Fourth Circuit ended the opinion by refusing to treat the appeal as a petition for mandamus. The defendants had “not even attempted to comply with the many procedural requirements for filing a petition for a writ of mandamus.” They had instead merely “tack[ed] this argument on to the end of their appellate brief.”
McEvoy v. Diversified Energy Co., 2024 WL 3642431 (4th Cir. Aug. 5, 2024), available at the Fourth 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 Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.
Continue reading....
In Amisi v. Brooks, the Fourth Circuit held that defendants can immediately appeal from the refusal to dismiss a claim as barred by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. The court thought that the Act provided an immunity from litigation. And that, apparently, was all that was necessary for an appeal via the collateral-order doctrine. But […]
Continue reading....
In Solomon v. St. Joseph Hospital, the Second Circuit skipped over appellate-jurisdiction issues to address the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. On its face, the opinion suggests that litigants can take interlocutory appeals to challenge federal subject-matter jurisdiction. This would be a massive—and likely inadvertent—expansion of interlocutory appeals.
Continue reading....
One requirement for appeal via the collateral-order doctrine is that the district court’s order be effectively unreviewable in an appeal after a final judgment. A prime candidate for satisfying this unreviewability requirement are immunities from suit. If a defense protects a litigant from the burdens and uncertainties of trial, it must be vindicated immediately if […]
Continue reading....
The Fourth Circuit took the extraordinary (and possibly improper) step today of directing a district court—via a writ of mandamus—to certify an issue for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). It did so in one of two interlocutory appeals in Maryland and the District of Columbia’s emoluments-clause suit against Donald Trump. In both, the Fourth […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
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....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.
Continue reading....