Calabrese on Making Law While Denying Mandamus
Kylie G. Calabrese has published a note in the Baylor Law Review titled Mandamus Madness in the Fifth Circuit: The Aftermath of In re JP Morgan. Calabrese chronicles—and criticizes—last year’s Fifth Circuit decision in In re JP Morgan Chase & Co., in which the panel denied mandamus yet purported to issue a binding holding on the underlying legal issues. She explains how this differed from past instances of appellate courts’ denying mandamus while “nudging” district courts to take another look at an issue. (We saw an example of that last year when the D.C. Circuit denied mandamus but said the district court was wrong in refusing to certify an issue for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).) She also shows how inappropriate this decision was in its disregard for the district court and the final-judgment rule. And she explores what might have motivated the author of the JP Morgan opinion—Judge Jerry Smith—to take such an unprecedented step.
The note is a great read—interesting, well written, and short. Check it out at the link below.
Kylie G. Calabrese, Mandamus Madness in the Fifth Circuit: The Aftermath of In re JP Morgan, 72 Baylor Law Review 165 (2020), available at the Baylor Law Review.
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
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. (I discussed a trio […]
Continue reading....
In In re Google LLC, the Federal Circuit used mandamus to order that a case be dismissed or transferred due to improper venue. The district court had concluded that Google’s having cache servers (but no employees) within the Eastern District of Texas was enough for venue to be proper in a patent-infringement suit. The Federal […]
Continue reading....
In In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., a district court had ordered a defendant to produce a list of its customers so opposing counsel could identify a lead plaintiff to pursue a class action. A split panel of the Ninth Circuit concluded that this discovery order was clearly erroneous and warranted reversal via mandamus.
Continue reading....
The following guest post is by Alan B. Morrison. Mr. Morrison is the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service Law at George Washington University Law School, where he teaches civil procedure. He is also the co-author, with Howard Eisenberg, of an article dealing with similar appeal issues: Discretionary Appellate Review of Non-Final […]
Continue reading....
Update, September 4, 2019: Back before the district court, the court certified its decisions for an immediate appeal under § 1292(b). Trump then petitioned to appeal, and on September 4, 2019, the D.C. Circuit granted the petition. In the emoluments suit brought by members of Congress, the D.C. Circuit tried to avoid weighing in on whether […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
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....