Rehearing En Banc Granted in State-Action Antitrust Appeal
Last summer, in SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an interlocutory denial of a state-action antitrust/Parker defense. The decision produced three different opinions on appellate jurisdiction. The majority applied long-standing Eleventh Circuit law holding that these denials are immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. Dissenting, Judge Tjoflat argued that the order in SmileDirectClub did not conclusively decide the Parker issue, such that the collateral-order doctrine did not apply. And in a concurrence, Judge Jordan suggested that the Eleventh Circuit reexamine its law in this area. For more on the panel decision and the underlying issue of appealing the Parker defense, see my post The Eleventh Circuit Divided Over State-Action Appeals.
Today, the Eleventh Circuit ordered that the case be reheard en banc. As best I can tell from the docket, rehearing is entirely at the court’s behest. The Eleventh Circuit has not (yet?) directed the parties to brief any particular issues. But I have to imagine that the court wants to address the appealability issue (and not anything to do with the substance of the Parker defense). The only question, I think, is the scope of the en banc court’s decision. It could address whether denials of the Parker defense are appealable at all. Or it might address the narrower issue of whether private parties (like the defendants in SmileDirectClub) should be able to appeal.
I’ll be watching this closely. And thanks to Howard Bashman for letting me know about the rehearing grant.
Order Granting Rehearing En Banc, SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle, 2020 WL 7214148 (11th Cir. Dec. 8, 2020), available at the Eleventh 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
Last summer, the Eleventh Circuit heard an immediate appeal from a district court’s denial of what’s often called “Parker immunity.” This so-called immunity provides that the Sherman Act generally does not cover a state’s anticompetitive conduct. The case—SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle—produced three separate opinions on appealability. The majority and dissent argued over the application of […]
Continue reading....
Update, December 8, 2020: The Eleventh Circuit has ordered rehearing en banc in this case. See Rehearing En Banc Granted in State-Action Antitrust Appeal for more. In SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle, the Eleventh Circuit heard an interlocutory appeal from the denial of state-action (or “Parker”) immunity. A circuit split exists on whether state-action appeals are […]
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....