Posts in category “Weekly Roundup”
Last week, in a split, unpublished opinion, Seventh Circuit held that motions to reconsider the denial of First Step Act relief extend the time for appealing. The D.C. Circuit held that would-be intervenors seeking to unseal judicial records can immediately appeal the denial of permissive intervention. The Tenth Circuit addressed its jurisdiction to review an order adding entities to a receivership. And in an interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that immunity was not available in qui tam suits. Plus two improper qualified-immunity appeals in which the defendants disputed the genuineness of fact disputes.
There were lots of interesting decisions last week. The Third Circuit held that attorneys can immediately appeal from denials of motions to withdraw due to a conflict of interest. The D.C. Circuit heard an appeal from an administrative remand in a suit involving the rates paid to pilots on the Great Lakes. The Fourth Circuit appeared to hold that litigants can immediately appeal denials of motions to seal, although the application of that holding to future cases is not entirely clear. The Ninth Circuit held that only one notice of appeal is required in deferred restitution cases. And the D.C. Circuit held that it could review whether a foreign sovereign could be ordered to simultaneously brief both its merits defenses and immunity. Plus two Eleventh Circuit decisions on qualified-immunity appeals and intervention appeals.
Last week saw a few decisions of note. There were three qualified-immunity appeals that raised jurisdictional issues. In one, the Tenth Circuit declined to address arguments that the defendants had failed to develop in the district court. In another, the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal because the defendants disputed the facts. And the Sixth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a municipality’s appeal. Also, the Seventh Circuit addressed the appealability of a dismissal without prejudice when the statute of limitations had not yet run on the plaintiff’s claim.
Last week saw the last appellate jurisdiction/procedure decision for this year’s Supreme Court term. In Nasrallah v. Barr, the Court held that courts could review factual findings underlying denials of protection under the Convention Against Torture, even if the petitioner had been convicted of a crime. There were also several court of appeals decisions of note. The Sixth Circuit dismissed a discovery appeal that involved deposing as non-party fact witnesses two defendants who claimed qualified immunity. The Second Circuit addressed how long parties have to file a notice of appeal when the United States intervenes in a qui tam action. Plus improper qualified-immunity appeals, excusing the failure to amend a notice of appeal, the jurisdictionality of objecting to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and more.
Last week was eventful. The Fourth Circuit joined the recent chorus of opinions addressing appellate jurisdiction when parties dismiss some claims without prejudice. The Ninth Circuit addressed the scope of remand appeals under § 1447(d), adding a little more interest to the recent cert petition on the issue. Another court held that the denial of a COVID-19 related temporary restraining order was immediately appealable. And the Sixth Circuit issued a series of decisions on appeals from the denial of First Step Act relief. Plus an improper qualified-immunity appeal and cumulative finality in the criminal context.
Last week saw a few decisions of note. The Fourth Circuit cleaned up its law on appealing dismissals without prejudice, deeming its 2015 decision in Goode v. Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, Inc. to be bad law. The First Circuit held that it could address whether the Board of Immigration Appeals deviated from its settled course of adjudication in reviewing the denial of sua sponte reopening. (In doing so, the court held contrary to a Ninth Circuit decision from last week.) The Third Circuit held that it could review a denial of arbitration even though that denial was based on disputed fact issues. And two courts dismissed qualified-immunity appeals that sought to challenge whether genuine fact issues precluded immunity.
Last week saw the en banc Fourth Circuit’s decisions on immediate appellate review of various decisions in an emoluments action. Another party fell into the Fifth Circuit’s finality trap, making me wonder whether that court actually made things worse in its recent en banc decision. Another defendant flouted the limits on the scope of qualified-immunity appeals. And the Ninth Circuit held that it lacks jurisdiction to address whether the Board of Immigration Appeals deviated from its “settled course of adjudication” in denying sua sponte reopening. Plus decisions on appealing dismissals without prejudice, orders requiring the government to pay an opposing party’s litigation expenses, and mid-term modifications of supervised release.
There were a few decisions of note last week. The en banc Fifth Circuit addressed the finality trap in a case that I’ve been following for quite some time. The Second Circuit joined other circuits in cutting back the availability of Perlman appeals. And the Sixth Circuit heard two more appeals involving temporary restraining orders. Also, a new cert petition asks the supreme Court to address the scope of § 1447(d) remand appeals in the context of Baltimore’s climate-change litigation against oil and gas companies.
Last week was an eventful one. There was another COVID-19 related appeal from a temporary restraining order, with the Fifth Circuit suggesting that an adversary hearing alone converts a TRO to a preliminary injunction for appeal purposes. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review issued a decision on its jurisdiction to review FISC decisions. The Third Circuit held that it could address Due Process arguments when reviewing immigration decisions involving discretionary relief. Another court of appeals used a writ of mandamus to order an agency to act. Plus more improper qualified-immunity appeals, an immediate appeal in an ancillary discovery proceeding, some Seventh Circuit language on appealing bifurcation orders, and more.
Last week, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of review in appeals from inter partes review. Judge Hamilton of the Seventh Circuit gave an excellent explanation of abuse-of-discretion review. More defendants sought (with mixed success) immediate appellate review of temporary restraining orders. Plus a writ of mandamus to the EPA, an improper qualified-immunity appeal, appealing bankruptcy remands, pendent appellate jurisdiction, notices of appeal, and appeals in post-judgment enforcement proceedings.
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 Contact