Blog

Last month produced a wide variety of appellate-jurisdiction decisions. The Eleventh Circuit issued more opinions on whether and when claimants can voluntarily dismiss (or, in one case, “abandon”) claims to create a final decision. The Ninth Circuit held that defendants can appeal from the denial of PREP Act immunity. And the Eleventh Circuit addressed the meaning of claims (versus counts) in the context of Rule 54(b).…

In Washington v. City of St. Louis, the Eighth Circuit vacated a denial of qualified immunity because the district court misstated and misapplied the summary-judgment standard. The Eighth Circuit thought this was a legal issue over which it had jurisdiction in a qualified-immunity appeal.

But I’m not sure. Most (if not all) reversible summary-judgment decisions can be characterized as misunderstandings or misapplications of the summary-judgment standard.…

In Scott v. Advanced Pharmaceutical Consultants, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit reversed the entry of a partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The district court had resolved most (but not all) of the counts pleaded in the plaintiff’s complaint. But the district court’s rejection of those counts did not resolve a distinct “claim” for purposes of Rule 54(b).…

In Garnett v. Akron City School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal insofar the plaintiff challenged the denial of his post-judgment Rule 60(b) motion. The plaintiff had appealed from the original judgment. But he had not filed a new or amended notice of appeal designating the Rule 60(b) denial, as Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) requires.…

Manufactured finality refers to litigants’ efforts to create a final, appealable decision through something other than a judicial resolution of all claims. The last few years have seen a spate of decisions on manufactured finality. But there is more to the topic than most think.

I’ve posted an article explaining as much.…

In Lowery v. Amguard Insurance Co., the Eleventh Circuit allowed an plaintiff to create a final, appealable decision by abandoning an unresolved claim. This should not be remarkable; courts have long allowed parties to abandon unresolved claims—even in the middle of oral argument—to cure defects in appellate jurisdiction.…

In Hampton v. California, the Ninth Circuit held that defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of PREP Act immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I think this is the first time a court of appeals has done so. (The Second Circuit avoided deciding this issue last spring, and the D.C.…

September saw more drama over Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c), as the Eleventh Circuit appeared to use Rule 3(c)(6) to revive the old practice of limiting the scope of an appeal to the designated order. The courts of appeals also addressed manufactured finality in the bankruptcy context, a discovery appeal implicating the Speech or Debate Clause, and the appealability of decisions on substituting counsel.…

In Kiviti v. Bhatt, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from an order deeming a debt dischargeable in bankruptcy. That discharge order meant the creditors would have to pursue that debt through bankruptcy. But it also left unresolved the creditors’ request to declare the existence of that debt. The Fourth Circuit held that the parties could not secure an appeal from the discharge decision by voluntarily dismissing this remaining request without prejudice.…

Until recently, several courts of appeals limited the scope of appeals to the orders designated in the notice of appeal. Recent amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) were supposed to end that practice. But those amendments also provided a way for litigants to limit the scope of an appeal.…