Skipping Appellate Jurisdiction to Address Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
In Solomon v. St. Joseph Hospital, the Second Circuit skipped over appellate-jurisdiction issues to address the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. On its face, the opinion suggests that litigants can take interlocutory appeals to challenge federal subject-matter jurisdiction. This would be a massive—and likely inadvertent—expansion of interlocutory appeals.
The Solomon Litigation
Simplifying a bit, the plaintiff sued the defendants in New York state court, alleging malpractice claims. The defendants then removed the case to federal court. As a basis for federal jurisdiction they invoked (among other things) immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which is sometimes called the “PREP” Act. The plaintiff never sought a remand or otherwise challenged federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The defendants then moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, arguing (among other things) that they were immune from liability under the PREP Act. The district court denied that motion. The defendants then appealed to the Second Circuit. And they argued that the Second Circuit had appellate jurisdiction via the collateral-order doctrine.
Skipping Appellate Jurisdiction
The Second Circuit ultimately concluded that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Given that conclusion, the court determined that it did not need to address whether denials of PREP Act immunity are immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
The explanation for bypassing the appellate-jurisdiction issue was brief. The Second Circuit said that it had “appellate jurisdiction to determine whether the district court had jurisdiction below.” In support of this proposition, the court cited to the familiar rule that when a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, a court of appeals has appellate jurisdiction to say so.
Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The Second Circuit’s reliance on that familiar rule is taken out of context. The rule addresses an oddity that some people see in a court of appeals holding that an action doesn’t belong in federal court. Given the appellate court’s conclusion about subject-matter jurisdiction, how can that court review the judgment? The simple answer is that the court of appeals must have jurisdiction to review the judgment. Otherwise the prevailing party would benefit from a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction.
It doesn’t follow from this rule that appellate courts can bypass issues of their own jurisdiction. Before a court of appeals can hold that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the case must properly be in the appellate court. That normally requires a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or some exception to the final-judgment rule. Even when courts exercise so-called “hypothetical” jurisdiction to address a case’s merits, they normally do so only when Article III jurisdiction is secure and the merits are straightforward.
The Second Circuit was thus wrong that it could skip the appellate-jurisdiction issue. The action needed to properly be in the court of appeals before that court can say anything about it.
Far more problematic, however, are the implications for future cases. On its face, Solomon seems to say that litigants can take interlocutory appeals to challenge a district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. After all, when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, Solomon says that the appellate court does not need to address the basis for the appeal—the court can merely assume that it has appellate jurisdiction and address subject-matter jurisdiction.
I’m guessing that the Solomon court did not consider the implications of its treatment of appellate jurisdiction. The court probably wanted to address the jurisdictional implications of the PREP Act, an issue that several federal courts have addressed recently. But the court needed appellate jurisdiction before it could do so.
Solomon v. St. Joseph Hospital, 2023 WL 2376207 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2023), available at CourtListener 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 Supreme Court granted cert in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The case asks if defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of derivative sovereign immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I wrote about the petition and the underlying circuit split earlier this year. And I wrote about the Tenth Circuit decision from which the petition stems […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.
Continue reading....
In McEvoy v. Diversified Energy Co., the Fourth Circuit dismissed a somewhat convoluted invocation of sovereign immunity. The defendants appealed to argue that a district court’s Rule 19 decision effectively denied a non-party’s sovereign immunity. But the defendant had never itself sought immunity. Nor had the actual immunity holder intervened to protect its interests. The […]
Continue reading....
In Amisi v. Brooks, the Fourth Circuit held that defendants can immediately appeal from the refusal to dismiss a claim as barred by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. The court thought that the Act provided an immunity from litigation. And that, apparently, was all that was necessary for an appeal via the collateral-order doctrine. But […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....