Blog

The cumulative-finality doctrine provides that certain subsequent events can save a premature notice of appeal filed after certain district court decisions. As I detailed in a 2018 article, the doctrine cannot be stated with any greater precision because the courts of appeals are all over the map on when exactly notices can be saved.…

Updated July 2021: The article has been published in the Georgia Law Review (55 Ga. L. Rev. 959 (2021)), and the final version is available on SSRN.

Last year year I wrote that Scott v. Harris’s blatant-contradiction rule for qualified-immunity appeals is an unpragmatic and unnecessary rule that should be rejected.…

Last week, the en banc Fifth Circuit heard argument in Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. The case gives that court the opportunity to clean up the “finality trap” it has created for litigants. The Fifth Circuit has held that parties may not appeal when they’ve voluntarily dismissed some of their claims without prejudice; the voluntary dismissal precludes the district court’s decision from being final.…

Last week was mostly about appeals and dismissals without prejudice. There were also a handful of cases limiting the scope of review due to the contents of a notice of appeal. Plus an appeal from a not-yet-determined attorneys’ fees award and a cert denial on the scope of qualified-immunity appeals.…

Update: For my full post on the argument in Williams, see The Fifth Circuit & the Finality Trap.

The en banc Fifth Circuit heard argument this morning in Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. The case addresses the finality and appealability of an action when some claims have been decided on the merits but others have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.…

The courts of appeals occasionally struggle with appellate jurisdiction when parties dismiss some of their claims without prejudice. The issue comes up when a district court has resolved some of the claims in a multi-claim suit and parties try to transform that non-final decision into a final one by dismissing their remaining claims without prejudice.…

Last week produced a handful of interesting appellate-jurisdiction decisions. The Supreme Court held that denials of relief from bankruptcy’s automatic stay are immediately appealable. A split Ninth Circuit used mandamus to reverse a discovery order that would have have helped class-action counsel find a lead plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief to plaintiffs who had voluntarily dismissed their claims to secure an appeal.…

In 2017’s Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs seeking to bring a class action could not voluntarily dismiss their individual claims and immediately appeal the denial of class certification. In doing so, the Supreme Court abrogated a line of Ninth Circuit decisions that allowed this voluntary-dismissal tactic.…

In United States v. 60 Automotive Grilles, the Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review a decision denying intervention as of right. That was because the district court correctly denied intervention. Practically speaking, the court reviewed and affirmed the district court’s decision. But under the “anomalous rule” that the Eleventh Circuit and other courts apply, appellate jurisdiction in intervention appeals turns on whether the district court correctly denied intervention.…

In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, the Supreme Court held that litigants must immediately appeal the conclusive denial of relief from bankruptcy’s automatic stay. Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from “final judgments, orders, and decrees . . . of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and proceedings.”…