Applying Dupree to Part of a Summary-Judgment Denial
In Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Edwards, the Ninth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Dupree v. Younger to permit review of part of a summary-judgment denial. In the course of doing so, the court rejected the argument that the denied summary-judgment motion needed to have been potentially dispositive as to the need for a trial.
The Summary-Judgment Denial in Cottonwood Environmental
Simplifying a fair bit, Cottonwood Environmental involved two theories of recovery under the Clean Water Act: a direct-discharge theory, and an indirect-discharge theory. The district court rejected the direct-discharge theory at summary judgment, concluding that the theory “failed as a matter of law as applied to the undisputed facts.” But the plaintiff could proceed to trial on its indirect-discharge theory. After the plaintiff lost at trial, it appealed the district court’s rejection of the direct-discharge theory.
Preserving Purely Legal Issues via Summary-Judgment Denials
The Ninth Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction over that issue. The denial of summary judgment normally does not preserve an issue for appeal after a trial on the merits. Preservation instead comes via motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. But the Supreme Court held in Dupree that a denied summary-judgment motion can preserve purely legal issues. And the district court’s rejection of the direct-discharge theory involved a purely legal issue: the district court held that the theory failed without any reference to disputed facts.
Preserving Some Issues
The Ninth Circuit added that the denied summary-judgment decision need not have been potentially dispositive. “[S]electively quote[ing] dicta” from a pre-Dupree decision, the appellee had argued that summary-judgment denials are not appealable unless the decision—had it gone the other way—would “have completely obviated the need for a trial.”
The Ninth Circuit said that Dupree foreclosed this “all-or-nothing approach to appellate review of summary judgment denials”:
Dupree makes clear that a reviewing court may review some issues contained in a summary judgment denial, and not others.
So the Ninth Circuit could review the portion of the summary-judgment denial that rejected the direct-discharge theory.
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Edwards, 2023 WL 8043823 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023), available at the Ninth 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 McGruder v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, the Sixth Circuit said that it would address a judicial-estoppel defense raised for the first time after the defendant had filed its notice of appeal. The Sixth Circuit framed this issue as one implicating the content and timing requirements for a notice of appeal. The […]
Continue reading....
I’ve been following the circuit split over preserving purely legal issues via denied summary-judgment motions for some time. Now, the Supreme Court has finally resolved it. In Dupree v. Younger, the Court held that a denied summary-judgment motion preserves a purely legal issue. Litigants thus do not need to re-raise those issues in post-trial motions […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court held in Ortiz v. Jordan that parties cannot appeal evidence-sufficiency issues raised in a denied summary-judgment motion after a trial on the merits. Parties must instead raise issues with the sufficiency of the trial evidence via a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. But Ortiz left open the possibility that […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court held in Ortiz v. Jordan that parties cannot appeal evidence-sufficiency issues raised in a denied summary-judgment motion after a trial on the merits. Parties must instead raise issues with the sufficiency of the trial evidence via a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. But Ortiz left open the possibility that […]
Continue reading....
As a general rule, parties cannot appeal an order denying summary judgment after a case proceeds to a full trial. In such a case, the trial record supersedes the summary-judgment record. So any questions about the sufficiency of the evidence at summary judgment become more or less moot; what matters is the sufficiency of the […]
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....