Posts in category “Appellate Decisions”

As a general rule, temporary restraining orders (often initialized as TROs) are not immediately appealable. Granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) permits appeals from orders concerning injunctions. But TROs are normally not considered injunctions for appellate-jurisdiction purposes. So litigants generally must wait until the district court rules on a preliminary injunction before taking an appeal.…

In Automotive Alignment & Body Service, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Eleventh Circuit navigated several potential errors in the timing and contents of notices of appeal. For two groups of plaintiffs, the district court dismissed their complaints but then improperly accepted late-filed amended complaints. Those amended complaints were a nullity—the dismissals became final once the time for amending had passed—and the plaintiffs failed to timely appeal from the original dismissal.…

In last week’s Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., the Fourth Circuit held that Baltimore’s climate-change lawsuit against oil and gas companies must proceed in state (not federal) court. The court also deepened an existing split on the scope of remand appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).…

In Littlefield v. Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe, the First Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review a district court order reversing a decision of the the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The case presents an interesting variation on the administrative-remand rule. A Massachusetts district court reversed a Bureau decision and remanded for further proceedings.…

In Norton v. High, the Fourth Circuit dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s appeal from a sanction order. The plaintiff had filed his notice of appeal after the district court ordered him sanctioned but before the court determined the amount of sanctions. The notice was thus premature. And under the Fourth Circuit’s approach to cumulative finality and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2), the district court’s subsequent decision setting that amount did not save the premature notice.…

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.…

In In re Marino, the Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision that remanded the dispute back to the bankruptcy court. The opinion provides a nice summary of the Ninth Circuit’s law on appealing bankruptcy remands. These remands mean further proceedings in the bankruptcy court.…

In Monday’s Orn v. City of Tacoma, the Ninth Circuit repeatedly rejected a defendant’s attempt to argue the facts in an interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal. Although defendants have a right to immediately appeal the denial of qualified immunity, that right is limited when immunity is denied at summary judgment. The court of appeals can review whether the defendant violated clearly established federal law.…

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.…

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.…