Blog

In Frank v. Crawley Petroleum Corp., the Tenth Circuit addressed just about every appellate-jurisdiction issue that could arise when an attorney appeals to challenge conditions on refiling. The district court in Frank had granted the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of a purported class action. But in doing so, the court restricted the plaintiff’s attorney’s ability to refile a similar class action.…

Last week saw a rare pushback against fact-based qualified-immunity appeals. Those appeals are both frivolous and common. Sanctions are rare. But the Sixth Circuit ordered some defendants to show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned for challenging the factual basis for an immunity denial. In other decisions, the Fifth Circuit applied Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) to appeals under the collateral-order doctrine.…

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) generally bars review of district court orders remanding a case to state court. But only certain kinds of remands fall under § 1447(d)’s bar. Last week, in Academy of Country Music v. Continental Casualty Co., the Ninth Circuit held that § 1447(d) did not apply when the district court had not given the defendant a chance to establish the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.…

Civil litigants normally have 30 days after the district court’s final judgment to file their notice of appeal. But several kinds of motions—like those for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59, or for relief under Rule 60—can reset that 30-day deadline.…

Fact-based qualified-immunity appeals—that is, appeals from the denial of immunity in which a defendant challenges the factual basis for the immunity denial—are a problem in the courts of appeals. With rare and narrow exceptions, the courts of appeals lack jurisdiction over these appeals. Defendants nevertheless take these appeals with some frequency, adding wholly unnecessary complexity, expense, and delay to civil-rights litigation.…

Last week, the Third Circuit illustrated one side of the split on whether courts must (or even can) address standing and other issues of subject-matter jurisdiction alongside interlocutory appeals. The Sixth Circuit vacated an improper partial judgment under Rule 54(b). The Ninth Circuit used the collateral-order doctrine to review an ERISA dispute that seemed to have stalled in the district court.…

Civil-rights plaintiffs sometimes sue both the government officials who injured them and the municipal entity (city, school, county, etc.) that employed the officials. (The claims against the municipalities are often called “Monell claims,” after the Supreme Court decision that governs them.) While individual government officials can invoke the qualified immunity defense, municipalities cannot.…

When a court of appeals hears an interlocutory appeal, must the court ensure that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction? A Third Circuit decision from earlier this week—O’Hanlon v. Uber Technologies, Inc.—says no. In the course of deciding an appeal from the denial of arbitration, the Third Circuit refused to address whether the plaintiffs had standing.…

There’s a lot to talk about from last week. The Federal Circuit said that it could use mandamus to review the decision to institute inter partes review in patent cases. Several decisions addressed the content requirements for a notice of appeal, including a Second Circuit decision on the failure of named class members to appeal alongside the class representatives.…

With rare exceptions, defendants appealing from the denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment cannot challenge the factual basis for the immunity denial. Yet defendants regularly flout this limit on the scope of interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals. They appeal from the denial of immunity to argue that the district court erred in determining what a reasonable jury could find.…