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

Tenth Circuit Rejects Anti-SLAPP Appeals
The Tenth Circuit held that anti-SLAPP appeals are too factual in nature to be immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
No Rehearing on Rule 4(a)(6) & Multi-Purpose Notices of Appeal
The en banc Fourth Circuit declined to rehear a case asking whether a single notice of appeal could be treated as both a Rule 4(a)(6) motion and—once that motion was granted—a notice of appeal.
Remand Appeals from the Veterans Court
The Federal Circuit explained that it could review a Veterans Court remand order when the appellant challenged the Veterans Court’s power to order the remand.
New Arguments After a Notice of Appeal
When a party raises an issue for the first time after filing its notice of appeal, does the notice limit jurisdiction over that issue? Or does the case instead implicate prudential limits on appellate courts’ addressing issues in the first instance?
Heck & Judicial Estoppel in Qualified-Immunity Appeals
The Sixth Circuit joined the “no jurisdiction” side of the split on whether courts can review Heck issues as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. But it probably went too far in reviewing a judicial-estoppel argument.

related posts

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).
The Fifth Circuit & the Finality Trap
The en banc Fifth Circuit can disarm its finality trap, which occasionally precludes appeals when plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss some of their claims.