Eleventh Circuit: No Contempt Appeals Without a Sanction
In In re Grand Jury Subpoena, the Eleventh Circuit explained that it could not review a contempt decision without a sanction.
The case involved subpoenas directed to three businesses. The document custodian for those businesses unsuccessfully moved to quash the subpoenas. The custodian then refused to comply with the subpoenas. The district court accordingly held the custodian in contempt. But the district court stayed any decision on sanctions until after the custodian could appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction. To be sure, an order of contempt is often immediately appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. But to be final, a non-contingent sanction must accompany the contempt. Otherwise, the contempt is akin to a determination of liability but not damages. And a determination of liability is not final until damages are set.
The Eleventh Circuit added that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Ryan was not to the contrary. Taken out of context, Ryan could be read to suggest that only a contempt citation is necessary to appeal. But Ryan didn’t involve a contempt appeal, nor did it have any reason to consider the appealability of a sanction-less contempt. It accordingly cannot be read to allow for contempt appeals without a sanction. In so reading Ryan, the Eleventh Circuit split with the Second Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit ended by noting that district courts are free to impose a sanction but then immediately stay its execution pending an appeal.
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2023 WL 1232830 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2023), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw
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 ContactRelated Posts
A ruling on liability is not final until the court specifies a remedy. But what if that remedy consists entirely of attorney fees? The Supreme Court has long held that a decision on the merits is final despite any unresolved issues regarding attorney fees. So is a ruling on liability final when the remedy is […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....