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
Injunction appeals have been in the spotlight of late. We’ve seen a few recent decisions on appeals from temporary restraining orders. And this month has already produced three cases involving effective denials of preliminary injunctions. One of these cases raised a question about the test for effective—and thus appealable—injunction denials. Under the Supreme Court’s decision […]
Continue reading....
In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) does not bar review of waiver-based remands. In so holding, the court overruled its decision in In re Weaver.
Continue reading....
In Amazon.com Services LLC v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit split over whether a party could appeal from the district court’s delay in deciding a preliminary-injunction motion. The would-be appellant sought to enjoin an order that it file a brief in an NLRB proceeding. When the deadline for that brief arrived, the district court had not […]
Continue reading....
April saw more decisions on whether temporary restraining orders were appealable injunctions. The Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s litigation privileges. And another court of appeals held that defendants cannot immediately appeal from the denial of a church-autonomy defense. Let’s start, however, with a particularly interested decision on what counts as a claim […]
Continue reading....
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....