Posts in category “Appellate Decisions”

When a court orders discovery over a claim of privilege, privilege claimants traditionally had two semi-reliable avenues for immediate appellate review. If the order directed the privilege claimant to disclose something, the claimant could appeal via the contempt route. The claimant could disobey, be held in contempt, immediately appeal the contempt, and—in that appeal—obtain review of the underlying discovery order.…

Last week, in Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., the Fifth Circuit failed to disarm its finality trap. This week, in CBX Resources, L.L.C. v. ACE American Insurance Co., a panel of the Fifth Circuit watched as another party fell into that trap. And unlike the plaintiffs in Williams, the plaintiff in CBX Resources had not obtained the post-proceedings Rule 54(b) certification that Williams held would cure any jurisdictional defects.…

When plaintiffs lose on some of their claims and then voluntarily dismiss the rest, they risk falling into the finality trap. If the remaining claims were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, most courts of appeals will hold that the district court has not issued a final, appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.…

The standard of review is an essential part of any appeal; you cannot know whether the district court erred without knowing how the court of appeals will look at the district court’s decision. This is particularly true of abuse-of-discretion review. Discretion necessarily means that there is more than one affirm-able answer.…

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.…