The Tenth Circuit tackled a slew of appellate-jurisdiction issues before addressing an attorney’s appeal from conditions on refiling.
April 5, 2021
In Frank v. Crawley Petroleum Corp., the Tenth Circuit addressed just about every appellate-jurisdiction issue that could arise when an attorney appeals to challenge conditions on refiling. The district court in Frank had granted the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of a purported class action. But in doing so, the court restricted the plaintiff’s attorney’s ability to refile a similar class action. In the attorney’s appeal, the Tenth Circuit addressed the adequacy of the notice of appeal, the proper party for the appeal, appellate standing, and finality. The court ultimately concluded that none of these issues stood in the way of the court’s addressing the merits. So the attorney could appeal to challenge the restrictions on refiling.
The Frank Litigation
Frank involved a putative class action against an oil-and-gas company for unpaid royalties. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of those who owned royalties in the company’s gas-producing wells. The parties conducted discovery on the propriety of class certification, paying particular attention to whether the plaintiff would be an adequate class representative. But before the district court could decide whether to certify the class, the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss his claims with prejudice.
The oil-and-gas company opposed dismissal. It had already spent about $1 million defending the suit. And since much of that effort focused on the plaintiff’s suitability as a class representative, the company’s efforts would be wasted upon dismissal, even if another plaintiff filed a similar class action.
The district court ultimately granted the motion to dismiss. But the court placed limits on the plaintiff’s attorney’s ability to file a similar class action against the company. The district court required (among other things) that the attorney file any similar class action in the same district court, whereupon the suit would then be assigned to the same judge. And if the attorney filed such an action, the oil-and-gas company could seek the costs and fees it incurred in defending the Frank suit.
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the dismissal.
The Attorney’s Appeal
The Tenth Circuit ultimately held that the attorney could appeal the order setting conditions on refiling. In the course of doing so, the court of appeals resolved four issues potentially affecting its jurisdiction.
The Notice of Appeal & the Party-Designation Requirement
As a preliminary matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the attorney had filed a proper notice of appeal.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) requires that a notice name the appealing parties. The notice in Frank named only the plaintiff. The oil-and-gas company accordingly argued that attorney had not properly appealed. The company also pointed out that the plaintiff was not aggrieved—he obtained the voluntary dismissal he wanted, and he had no stake in the refiling conditions. So it would seem that no who could appeal had actually done so.
The Tenth Circuit disagreed. It was clear from the notice that the attorney—not the plaintiff—was pursuing the appeal. The notice of appeal designated only the order imposing conditions on dismissal as the appealed order. Those conditions applied only to the attorney. So it was obvious that the attorney intended to appeal.
The Attorney’s Non-Party Status
Second, the Tenth Circuit determined that the attorney could appeal despite not being a party in the district court.
Normally only parties to a lawsuit may appeal. But an exception to that general rule applies when the non-party has a “unique interest” in the case and participates in it.
The attorney had a unique interest in the Frank dismissal. That dismissal imposed conditions on the attorney’s filing a similar suit. And it’s not unusual for attorneys to appeal without becoming a party to the lawsuit. Courts normally allow attorneys to appeal when an order affects them, such as a sanctions order.
The Attorney’s Standing to Appeal
Third, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the attorney had standing to appeal.
A party must have standing to appeal. And a party must have an injury to have standing. The oil-and-gas company argued that attorney was not injured:
[T]he dismissal conditions are not sanctions against him: he is not required to make a monetary payment, he is not reprimanded, nor is he subject to any disciplinary action.
With no injury, the company argued, there was no standing.
The Tenth Circuit easily rejected this argument. The district court’s order limited the attorney’s ability to practice and required him to refrain from certain conduct. True, the conditions on refiling did not apply until the attorney filed a new suit. But litigants need not disobey orders governing their behavior to have an injury. To hold otherwise would mean that no one has standing to challenge an injunction without first violating it.
The Finality of the Voluntary Dismissal
Finally, the Tenth Circuit held that the dismissal was final and appealable.
The order granting the voluntary dismissal was a paradigmatic final order. It resolved all issues before the district court, leaving nothing for that court to do but enforce the judgment. There was no risk of piecemeal appeals. Any delay in appealing could have irreparable consequences. And there was no reason to require the attorney to violate a filing condition before challenging it. There was also no indication of an attempt to circumvent the normal rules on appeals, which could lead to a Microsoft Corp. v. Baker-like conclusion that an order resolving all issues in a case is somehow not final.
Related to that last point, the Tenth Circuit offered an interesting note on why some final orders cannot be appealed, which might better explain the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker:
For example, if a party moves for a judgment against it on all claims, it cannot appeal the judgment entered. But that is not because the judgment is not final. It is because the motion waived the party’s right to appeal, or because there is no longer a case or controversy.
(Citations omitted.)
On the merits, the Tenth Circuit reversed. The defendant had not shown any legal prejudice from the dismissal. Without prejudice, there were no grounds for imposing conditions on the dismissal.
Frank v. Crawley Petroleum Corp., 2021 WL 1166396 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 2021), available at the Tenth Circuit and Westlaw.