Posts in category “Weekly Roundup”
Last week, the Federal Circuit might have kicked off another game of jurisdictional hot potato with the Fifth Circuit. Those courts can’t agree on where Walker Process appeals belong, and the Federal Circuit just sent another to the Fifth. The Sixth Circuit declined to weigh in on whether district courts must stay (and not dismiss) actions after ordering arbitration. Resolution of this stay-versus-dismissal issue affects whether the litigants can appeal, and its one that the Supreme Court has repeatedly avoided deciding. The en banc Fourth Circuit limited an intervention appeal to the second denial of intervention, as the would-be intervenors did not appeal from their first denial. And the Ninth Circuit held that it could review a decision delaying the resolution of a motion to compel arbitration. Plus finality after an implicit rejection of damages, an “entirely deficient” notice of appeal, pendent appellate jurisdiction in an injunction appeal, and attorneys’ fee appeals via the collateral-order doctrine.
Last week, the Eighth Circuit said that an appeal from a refusal to compel arbitration encompasses all issues resolved alongside that refusal, even those unrelated to arbitration. So the court could address the propriety of class-action allegations as part of an arbitration appeal. The First Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Rules—not the Civil Rules—apply to cases consolidated under § 1334(b). So bankruptcy’s shorter deadline for reconsideration motions—and thus shorter deadline for delaying the start of the appeal window—applies. And the Sixth Circuit said that appeal waivers do not affect the court’s statutory appellate jurisdiction. Plus an improper qualified-immunity appeal and using a notice of appeal to narrow the scope of an appeal.
Quick roundup this week. There were two cert denials of note. One asked if denied summary-judgment motions preserve purely legal issues. The other asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the finality trap. In the courts of appeals, the Eleventh Circuit held that defendants must obtain a certificate of appealability to challenge a district court’s decision to correct the improper part of a sentence (rather than resentence in full). And the D.C. Circuit determined that a district court had intended to dismiss an entire action, not just a complaint.
The big news last week was the Supreme Court’s decision on the scope of remand appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). There were also several decisions of note in the courts of appeals, all from the D.C. and Third Circuits. The D.C. Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review denials of compassionate release under either 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or 18 U.S.C. § 3742. The D.C. Circuit also said that in a suit brought only to compel arbitration, the time to appeal runs from the district court’s ordering that arbitration proceed. The Third Circuit joined several other circuits in holding that litigants can immediately appeal denials of requests to proceed anonymously. That court also said that non-parties can appeal from orders of request under the Hague Convention.
Last week, the Eleventh Circuit said that it could review a remand order when the plaintiff raised a procedural defect only in her reply brief (which she filed more than 30 days after removal). The Sixth Circuit concluded that a Rule 54(b) partial judgment was proper despite some factual and legal overlap in the resolved and unresolved claims. And the Ninth Circuit rejected some defendants’ attempts to challenge the factual basis for a qualified-immunity denial, including their invocation of the blatant-contradiction exception. Plus the need for a second notice of appeal after a cost or fee decision, district court jurisdiction after a notice of appeal, and the order-designation requirement for notices of appeal.
Quick roundup this week. The Eleventh Circuit said that a decision dissolving an injunction against arbitration doesn’t count as an order modifying an injunction against arbitration. So litigants can’t appeal from the dissolution decision. And the Fifth Circuit reviewed the interpretation of a consent decree via the collateral-order doctrine, using some case-specific reasoning on its way to deeming the order appealable.
Lots to talk about from last week. There was a split decision over whether the passage of time amounts to a changed circumstance that can support an injunction appeal. The Eleventh Circuit held that a party should have appealed before the district court amended its judgment to specify the amount of damages, as that amount was easy to calculate from the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit also addressed its jurisdiction to review sua sponte remand orders and decisions involving payments to or from a district court’s registry. The Fifth Circuit held that an appeal from a final criminal judgment does not encompass a subsequent garnishment order. That court also continued to express some doubt about Scott v. Harris’s blatant-contradiction exception to the normal limits on qualified-immunity appeals.
In cert-stage developments, there are two new petitions of note. One asks if immigration’s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. Another asks the court to address the appellate jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. And the Supreme Court denied a petition asking what to do with post-Hall appeals from pre-Hall judgments.
Plus an appeal involving a district court’s post-appeal explanation for a decision and a notice of appeal that failed all of the content requirements.
Last week was full of courts dismissing appeals for a lack of jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit rejected two attempts at manufacturing an interlocutory appeal by voluntarily dismissing all outstanding claims. The Fifth Circuit highlighted the need to file another timely notice of appeal when a court of appeals has remanded a case for further district court proceedings. The Tenth Circuit explained that a Tax Court “report” was not a decision that could save a premature notice of appeal. That court also dismissed an appeal from an administrative remand in the IDEA context. And the Fifth Circuit said that it could not review a decision to stay district court proceedings pending the resolution of a related criminal investigation. Plus certificates of appealability on district court recusal decisions and finality after a district court administratively closes a case.
Last week saw a few decisions of note. The First Circuit addressed both the exception to the merger doctrine for failure-to-prosecute dismissals and an exception to that exception. The Seventh Circuit said that the appointment of a special master was not an appealable injunction, though it left open the possibility that different circumstances could render an appointment appealable. And the Fifth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over various issues and parties in a qualified-immunity appeal, noting that pendent party jurisdiction was never proper.
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