Scholarship

New Article on Manufactured Finality

I have a new article on the variables that go into manufactured finality, its various forms, and its likely future.

October 9, 2023

By Bryan Lammon

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.

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

Manufactured Finality Before the MSPB
The Fourth Circuit nicely explained that manufactured finality comes in a variety of forms, some of which are acceptable and some of which aren’t.
Manufactured Finality & Dispositive Interlocutory Orders
The Second Circuit split over whether it had jurisdiction after a stipulated judgment, particularly whether a preliminary-injunction decision effectively resolved an action.
The Merger Doctrine After Sanction Dismissals
The Second Circuit held that interlocutory orders do not merge into a final judgment when the action was dismissed as a discovery sanction.
Abandoning a Claim v. Amending a Complaint to Create Finality
Ditching its initial holding that abandoning unresolved claims creates a final decision, the Eleventh Circuit treated a purported abandonment as a successful attempt to amend a complaint.
Abandoning (Rather than Dismissing) Claims to Create Finality
The Eleventh Circuit held that claimants can create a final decision by “abandoning” unresolved claims, which stands in some tension with that court’s rule that litigants cannot voluntarily dismiss discrete claims.