Blog

The only major appellate-jurisdiction decision from last week was the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to limit the impact of Microsoft Corp. v. Baker. Baker said that class-action plaintiffs cannot appeal an adverse class-certification decision by voluntarily dismissing their claims. The Ninth Circuit held that this bar on manufacturing an appeal via a voluntary dismissal applied only to contexts in which there are special appellate-jurisdiction rules, like class actions and arbitration.…

Sometimes litigants are unsatisfied with the existing avenues for interlocutory appeals. So they try to manufacture a final decision, often by voluntarily dismissing some or all of their claims. Manufactured finality comes in a variety of forms. In 2017’s Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, the Supreme Court shut down one of them.…

Last week, the Seventh Circuit questioned whether any bright-line deadline existed for seeking a partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). A concurring opinion from the Sixth Circuit misread Johnson v. Jones to permit the review of evidentiary issues in qualified-immunity appeals. The Third and Seventh Circuits addressed the timeliness of sanctions appeals.…

Although there is a concerted effort to reform or abolish qualified immunity, the prospects of doing so are uncertain. In a new article, I argue that if if qualified immunity remains in its current or a similar form, reformers should target qualified-immunity appeals. Although courts and commentators have occasionally criticized qualified-immunity appeals, they often fail to see how much damage these appeals have done.…

When an action involves multiple claims, appeals normally must wait until the district court has resolved all of claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is one exception to this general rule. It permits a district court to enter a partial judgment on the resolution of some (but not all) claims in an action.…

Last week saw lots of interesting decisions. Two cases implicated the recent amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)’s order-designation requirement, though only one court of appeals seemed to realize as much. The First Circuit held that stay-put orders in IDEA cases are immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.…

Mandamus is supposedly an extraordinary remedy. But a new paper from Jonas Anderson, Paul Gugliuzza, and Jason Rantanen shows that grants of the writ have become somewhat ordinary in Federal Circuit. And those grants have largely addressed venue issues in patent cases filed in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.…

The Supreme Court recently amended Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). Before these amendments, several courts of appeals had used Rule 3(c)’s order-designation requirement to limit the scope of an appeal. The amendments—which were a necessary fix to a bad misreading of Rule 3(c)—became effective December 1, 2021. The Supreme Court’s order adopting the amendments said that the new rule would “govern in all proceedings in appellate cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending.”…

Last week, the Ninth Circuit heard an immediate appeal from an unsuccessful challenge to an indictment. The defendant contended that the Juvenile Delinquency Act barred his prosecution as an adult. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant could immediately appeal this decision via the collateral-order doctrine.

In another decision, the Ninth Circuit addressed the relation forward of a notice of appeal.…

There are only two decisions to discuss from last week. The Fifth Circuit held that it could review an order that (among other things) remanded a claim to an administrative agency. Because the district court was done with the case, the decision was a final one. And the D.C. Circuit granted a petition to appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).…