Appellate Decisions

Reconsidering a Prior Panel’s Jurisdiction

In a subsequent appeal from the same action, the Sixth Circuit vacated a prior panel decision after concluding that the panel lacked appellate jurisdiction.

April 12, 2024

By Bryan Lammon

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

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

Appeals After Unresolved Claims & Theories
Has a district court issued a final decision if it overlooked one of the parties’ claims? Courts seem to disagree. But the best answer might be that these oversights implicate the adequacy of the judgment, not finality.
A Lack of Finality Despite a Final Judgment
In two recent appeals, courts held that a purported final judgment was defective—and no final decision existed—due to unresolved crossclaims.
Counts & Claims for Rule 54(b) Appeals
The Eleventh Circuit explained that different counts are not distinct claims for purposes of Rule 54(b) when they stem from the same events and seek a remedy for the same injury.
The Timeliness of a Rule 54(b) Partial Judgment
The Seventh Circuit held that there was no jurisdictional time limit on seeking a Rule 54(b) partial judgment. And it questioned earlier decisions imposing a 30-day deadline (albeit a non-jurisdictional, claims-processing one) on those requests.
Avoiding—but Not Disarming—the Finality Trap
Rather than disarm the finality trap, the Fifth Circuit found a way to avoid it: an odd, unintuitive, and unnecessary use of Rule 54(b).