New Article on Manufactured Finality
Manufactured finality refers to litigants’ efforts to create a final, appealable decision through something other than a judicial resolution of all claims. The last few years have seen a spate of decisions on manufactured finality. But there is more to the topic than most think.
I’ve posted an article explaining as much. In it, I discuss the variables that go into manufactured finality, the variety of forms it takes, and the future of those various forms after the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker.
I end the article with two thoughts for the future. First, I ask whether we might better define a final decision (at least for the purposes of traditional, end-of-proceedings appeals) as existing once the district court has finished with an action. Second, I ask what role litigants (as opposed to Congress, rulemakers, and courts) should play in determining when appeals should come before the end of district court proceedings.
The article is titled Manufactured Finality, and it’s forthcoming in the Villanova Law Review. You can read the draft at SSRN, and the abstract is below.
Manufactured finality is an umbrella term for the various ways that federal litigants try to create a final, appealable decision. And it has an uncertain future after the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker. Yet existing studies of manufactured finality have failed to appreciate its nuances. Several different varieties of manufactured finality exist. Each applies in different contexts, implicates different interests, and has different prospects for future use after Microsoft. In this article, I comprehensively detail the variables that go into manufactured finality, create a typology of the various forms of manufactured finality that appear in the courts of appeals, and address Microsoft’s impact on each of those forms.
In the course of doing so, I raise two larger issues. The first concerns how we define finality. The predominant conception of finality looks to the substance of a district court’s decision, asking if that court has actually disposed of all claims in an action. The law of appellate jurisdiction might be improved by shifting the focus to asking simply whether the district court has finished with an action. The second issue concerns the role that litigants play in determining when they can appeal. As things stand, courts have essentially complete control over those matters. Experience with manufactured finality suggests that litigants should have some say in identifying proper opportunities for interlocutory appeals, too.
Manufactured Finality, 69 Villanova Law Review (forthcoming 2024), available at SSRN.
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
In United States v. Wilson, the Ninth Circuit permitted the government to appeal a discovery order in a criminal case after the government asked the district court to dismiss the indictment to facilitate an appeal. Although the order was interlocutory, the Ninth Circuit could review it under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. That’s because § 3731 doesn’t require […]
Continue reading....
In Jones v. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, the Fourth Circuit reviewed a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board even though the petitioners voluntarily dismissed some of their theories of relief. That voluntary dismissal was with prejudice, which made it highly unlikely that the voluntarily dismissed theories would ever resurface. So the petitioners were […]
Continue reading....
In New York State Telecommunications Association v. James, the Second Circuit split over an attempt at manufacturing finality. The district court had granted a preliminary injunction after concluding that federal law preempted a New York state law. The parties then stipulated to entry of a final judgment. A majority of the Second Circuit determined that […]
Continue reading....
Courts have long held that the merger doctrine does not apply when an action is dismissed for a failure to prosecute. In Marquez v. Silver, the Second Circuit extended this holding to actions dismissed as a discovery sanction. The court explained that sanction dismissals carry the same risk of strategic behavior as failure-to-prosecute dismissals. The […]
Continue reading....
Last October, the Eleventh Circuit held in Lowery v. Amguard Insurance Co. that litigants can create a final decision by abandoning unresolved claims. As I noted at the time, this holding stood in some tension with the Eleventh Circuit’s rule that litigants cannot voluntarily dismiss discrete claims. And although I liked the outcome, I did […]
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....