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
The Supreme Court granted cert in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The case asks if defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of derivative sovereign immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I wrote about the petition and the underlying circuit split earlier this year. And I wrote about the Tenth Circuit decision from which the petition stems […]
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....
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....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....