Scholarship

New Article on Appeals After Voluntary Dismissals

Voluntary dismissals after adverse interlocutory orders don’t create a jurisdictional problem. They instead implicate waiver.

September 6, 2023

By Bryan Lammon

I have a new article on appeals from voluntary dismissals after an adverse interlocutory decision.

Litigants have long tried to manufacture a final, appealable decision from these dismissals. Recently—and especially since the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker—courts have thought that these dismissals created a jurisdictional problem. Either the voluntary dismissal did not produce a final decision, or the dismissal extinguished Article III jurisdiction.

But the problem with these appeals is not jurisdictional. It’s waiver. A voluntary dismissal after an adverse interlocutory decision waives the right to appellate review. The article shows the flaws in the jurisdictional rejection of this kind of manufactured finality and offers a much simpler reason for barring them. So when this issue makes its way back before the Supreme Court, the Court should recognize what the issue is, has been, and should remain: an issue of waiver.

The article is titled Voluntary Dismissals, Jurisdiction & Waiving Appellate Review, and it’s forthcoming in the University of Cincinnati Law Review. A draft is available at SSRN.

Voluntary Dismissals, Jurisdiction & Waiving Appellate Review, 92 University of Cincinnati Law Review (forthcoming 2024), available at SSRN.

recent posts

No Perlman Appeals When the Same Issues Could Be Raised via Contempt
The Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant cannot take a Perlman appeal when the claimant could have raised the same issues via its own contempt appeal.
A Rule 4 Conflict: The Prison-Mailbox Rule v. the Mistaken-Filing Rule
The Fifth Circuit held that when an imprisoned appellant mistakenly mails a notice of appeal to the court of appeals, the notice is deemed filed when deposited in the prison mail system.
The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: September 2024
Another split on pure Bivens appeals, no equitable exceptions for Rule 4(a)(4), another failure to apply the Rule 3(c) amendments, and more.
Serving, Filing, and Equitable Exceptions to Rule 4(a)(4)
The Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the appeal clock. The court added that Rule 4(a)(4) does not allow for equitable exceptions and addressed an order-designation issue, too.
Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and Tenth Circuits in rejecting pure Bivens appeals. But like those courts, the Ninth’s decision was split.

related posts

More on Rule 41 Dismissals of Actions and Claims
The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs can voluntarily dismiss only entire actions, regardless of whether they use Rule 41(a)(1) or (2).
Finality After Rule 41 Dismissals of Claims & Actions
The Eleventh Circuit held that a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) dismissal—which purported to dismiss all unresolved claims—was ineffective and thus did not produce a final, appealable decision.
New Essay on the Finality Trap
The courts of appeals have created an asinine finality trap that they need to get rid of. The trap also makes me wonder whether we need to rethink finality.
The Seventh Circuit on Voluntary Dismissals & Jurisdiction, Both Appellate and Article III
The Seventh Circuit addressed whether voluntary dismissals implicate appellate jurisdiction (and said “no”) or Article III jurisdiction (and said “yes”). But the issue isn’t jurisdictional at all. Voluntary dismissals instead implicate the possible waiver of appellate review.
Another Cert Petition on the Finality Trap
A new cert petition challenges the Ninth Circuit’s variation on the finality trap.