Reconsidering a Prior Panel’s Jurisdiction
In RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over a prior appeal in an action. The court accordingly vacated the prior panel’s decision.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen this before. And while it might be an okay practice in appeals from the same action (though I have doubts), I don’t think appellate panels should—indeed, can—inquire into jurisdiction in prior decisions.
The RJ Control Appeals
Simplifying a fair bit, the plaintiffs in RJ Control brought several copyright-infringement claims. The defendants responded with counterclaims. The district court later granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs then appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed part of the district court’s decision. The court of appeals then remanded the case for the taking of additional evidence.
Some time after the remand, the district court again granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs appealed again. But this time, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction. The district court had not resolved the defendants’ counterclaims. Nor had the district court entered a partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The district court’s decision was accordingly not final.
Back in the district court once more, the district court dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims. The plaintiff appealed again.
Reconsidering Jurisdiction in a Prior Panel Decision
Now, the Sixth Circuit had jurisdiction. But the panel pointed out that its decision in the second appeal—that unresolved counterclaims deprived the court of appellate jurisdiction—necessarily meant that the court also lacked jurisdiction over the first appeal. Those counterclaims were just as unresolved at the time of the first appeal as they were at the second.
The Sixth Circuit accordingly vacated its first decision. That didn’t change the outcome; the panel agreed with the reasoning of the vacated decision. And the Sixth Circuit saw no reason to vacate the district court’s decisions that relied on the first panel decision; the district court unquestionably had jurisdiction to make those decisions. But the first appellate decision nevertheless became a nullity.
A Limited Ability to Reconsider Appellate Jurisdiction?
I don’t recall ever seeing a panel say that a prior panel lacked appellate jurisdiction, thereby allowing the court to vacate (or otherwise disregard) the prior decision. And it seems a little odd to me.
Perhaps it’s defensible in the context of RJ Control because all of the appeals stemmed from the same action. But appellate courts cannot be doing this in appeals from separate actions. Otherwise, panels could say that a prior decision is not controlling if, in hindsight, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.
RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, 2024 WL 1432723 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024), available at the Sixth 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
The general, well-known, and riddled-with-exceptions rule is that a decision is not final until the district court has resolved all of the parties’ claims. So what should courts do when the district court overlooks a claim or theory of relief that one of the parties had pleaded? A handful of recent decisions have raised this […]
Continue reading....
The classic definition of a “final decision” is one that ends litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but enforce the judgment. So when a district court enters what it calls a “final judgment” and closes a case, it would seem that a final decision exists. But what if […]
Continue reading....
In Scott v. Advanced Pharmaceutical Consultants, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit reversed the entry of a partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The district court had resolved most (but not all) of the counts pleaded in the plaintiff’s complaint. But the district court’s rejection of those counts did not resolve a distinct “claim” […]
Continue reading....
When an action involves multiple claims, appeals normally must wait until the district court has resolved all of claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is one exception to this general rule. It permits a district court to enter a partial judgment on the resolution of some (but not all) claims in an action. That […]
Continue reading....
When plaintiffs lose on some of their claims and then voluntarily dismiss the rest, they risk falling into the finality trap. If the remaining claims were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, most courts of appeals will hold that the district court has not issued a final, appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This general rule becomes […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
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....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.
Continue reading....