The impact of Microsoft Corp. v. Baker on manufactured finality and more.
April 20, 2022
The only major appellate-jurisdiction decision from last week was the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to limit the impact of Microsoft Corp. v. Baker. Baker said that class-action plaintiffs cannot appeal an adverse class-certification decision by voluntarily dismissing their claims. The Ninth Circuit held that this bar on manufacturing an appeal via a voluntary dismissal applied only to contexts in which there are special appellate-jurisdiction rules, like class actions and arbitration.
In other decisions, the Federal Circuit held that the voluntary, without-prejudice dismissal of an unresolved counterclaim did not result in a final decision. The Second Circuit dismissed an arbitration appeal because the district court was not yet done with the dispute over arbitration. And the Fifth Circuit refused to extend pendent appellate jurisdiction over a transfer decision.
Last week saw opinions on what makes a Rule 54(b) motion timely, the review of evidence issues in qualified-immunity appeals, the timelienss of sanction appeals, the jurisdictionality of immigration's appeal deadline, and more.
April 14, 2022
Last week, the Seventh Circuit questioned whether any bright-line deadline existed for seeking a partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). A concurring opinion from the Sixth Circuit misread Johnson v. Jones to permit the review of evidentiary issues in qualified-immunity appeals. The Third and Seventh Circuits addressed the timeliness of sanctions appeals. And the Fifth Circuit joined the Second and Ninth Circuits in holding that the 30-day deadline for appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals is not jurisdictional. Plus transfer orders from the Claims Court, the scope of a Double Jeopardy appeal, and a fact-based qualified-immunity appeal.
Order designations in notices of appeal, stay-put orders in IDEA cases, qualified immunity, government appeals in criminal cases, and more.
April 6, 2022
Last week saw lots of interesting decisions. Two cases implicated the recent amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)’s order-designation requirement, though only one court of appeals seemed to realize as much. The First Circuit held that stay-put orders in IDEA cases are immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. Several courts dealt with the general bar on reviewing the factual basis for a qualified-immunity denial. Two of those decisions addressed improper attempts to challenge those facts, while another invoked the blatant-contradiction exception to the general rule. Another qualified-immunity appeal came from the refusal to amend a pretrial order that had included a particular claim among those to be tried. In other decisions, the Fifth Circuit reviewed evidentiary decisions in an interlocutory prosecution appeal. That court also used mandamus to order a district court to request that a case be re-transferred back to the district court. Plus appeals of remand orders under CAFA’s local-controversy exception, denials of immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act, appealing a favorable judgment, duty-to-defend decisions as appealable injunctions, changing without-prejudice dismissals on appeal, and appeals by non-parties.
Appealing a Juvenile Delinquency Act-based challenge to an indictment, relating forward notices of appeal after dismissals with leave to amend, finality and standing in bankruptcy appeals, and more.
March 29, 2022
Last week, the Ninth Circuit heard an immediate appeal from an unsuccessful challenge to an indictment. The defendant contended that the Juvenile Delinquency Act barred his prosecution as an adult. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant could immediately appeal this decision via the collateral-order doctrine.
In another decision, the Ninth Circuit addressed the relation forward of a notice of appeal. The district court had dismissed a complaint with leave to amend, and the plaintiffs appealed rather than amend. The Ninth Circuit said that at the time of this appeal, it lacked jurisdiction and the notice was premature. But the district court’s subsequent entry of a final order of dismissal saved the premature notice.
In other decisions, the Second Circuit dismissed an appeal from a district court decision partially affirming and partially vacating a bankruptcy court’s contempt order. Two courts of appeals addressed improper factual challenges in qualified-immunity appeals. The D.C. Circuit dismissed an appeal from an order referring an attorney for potential discipline. And the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal because the plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed its claims against a defendant without prejudice.
Appealing administrative remands and the scope of a Rule 23(f) appeal.
March 23, 2022
There are only two decisions to discuss from last week. The Fifth Circuit held that it could review an order that (among other things) remanded a claim to an administrative agency. Because the district court was done with the case, the decision was a final one. And the D.C. Circuit granted a petition to appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). In its order doing so, the court directed the parties to address whether the court of appeals had pendent appellate jurisdiction to also review an order concerning a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Appeals involving sua sponte CAFA remands, state court preliminary injunctions, judicial immunity in a criminal prosecution, contempt orders without a sanction, and more.
March 16, 2022
I was on spring break last week and took a break from the weekly roundup. But I’m back with decisions and developments from the past two weeks (February 27–March 12). And there were several decisions of note.
Two courts dismissed appeals based on close textual readings of jurisdictional statutes. A divided Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review sua sponte CAFA remands. The majority reasoned that 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) gives the courts of appeals discretion to review remand decisions that come after a motion to remand. Because sua sponte remands don’t come after a motion, they don’t fall within § 1453(c)(1). In reaching this conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit split with the Ninth. And the Sixth Circuit joined the First Circuit in holding that it could not review a state court’s preliminary-injunction order after a case was removed to federal court. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction to immediately review many orders involving injunctive relief, those orders must come from a district court. A state court’s preliminary injunction does not become the district court’s after removal.
In other decisions, the First Circuit held that the denial of judicial immunity in a criminal case is not immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine, as judicial immunity is not a statutory or constitutional right to avoid trial. The Tenth Circuit held that a contempt order was not final until the district court imposed a sanction. The Ninth Circuit held that a nominally without-prejudice denial of relief from a bankruptcy stay was final. And two courts of appeals dismissed fact-based qualified-immunity appeals. Finally, a new cert petition asks whether a party must serve an effective notice of appeal on the other parties.
A duty-to-defend order as an appealable injunction, the scope of sovereign-immunity appeals, and the extent to which a qualified-immunity appeal raised issues within the court’s jurisdiction.
March 2, 2022
Last week saw a few cases of note. The Seventh Circuit held that an order requiring an insurance company to defend its insured was an appealable injunction. The Sixth Circuit limited a sovereign-immunity appeal to sovereign-immunity issues, refusing to address standing or municipal liability. The Sixth Circuit also split on the extent to which defendants raised arguments within the court’s jurisdiction in a qualified-immunity appeal.
Pendent appellate jurisdiction in arbitration appeals, appeals from attorney criticism, and more.
February 24, 2022
After taking last week off from the roundup, I’m back with a two-week edition. The Fourth Circuit split on whether it could extend pendent appellate jurisdiction over orders directing arbitration. The First Circuit determined that a district court’s criticism of attorneys was not sufficiently related to a formal sanction to be appealable. Plus pendent appellate jurisdiction over an amendment decision, the scope of review in Black Lung Benefits appeals, and whether a discovery order requiring the turning over of cell phones was an appealable injunction.
Guidance letters and final decisions of the attorney general, the appealability of settlement-enforcement orders, fact-based qualified-immunity appeals, and more.
February 9, 2022
Last week, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether a letter from the Drug Enforcement Agency amounted to an appealable “final decision of the Attorney General.” The Federal Circuit held that it could review an order enforcing a settlement agreement. And several courts had to deal with improper fact-based qualified-immunity appeals. Plus appeals involving refusals to reconsider decisions ordering arbitration and the scope of state-law immunity appeals.
Appealing the refusal to enjoin a criminal prosecution, administrative exhaustion in extraordinary-ability visa cases, and more.
February 1, 2022
Short roundup this week. The First Circuit reviewed a refusal to enjoin a criminal prosecution. And the Fifth Circuit explained that administrative exhaustion was not required in extraordinary-ability visa cases. In the course of doing so, that court questioned its caselaw deeming administrative exhaustion jurisdictional in this context. Plus appeals involving an undetermined amount of liability, the denial of a Colorado River stay, and more.