The Appeal Deadline & Subsequent Rule 59(e) Motions
In Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Myers, the Fifth Circuit held that the grant of a Rule 59(e) motion results in a new judgment, such that a second Rule 59(e) motion reset the appeal clock. The decision illustrates the seemingly rare scenario in which a subsequent post-judgment motion can extend the time to appeal.
Resetting the Appeal Deadline With Post-Judgement Motions
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), certain post-judgment motions—including motions to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59—reset the appeal deadline. But that rule normally applies only to the first motion (or first group of motions, if multiple are filed together). Successive post-judgment motions generally don’t reset the appeal deadline. That is, a party cannot reset the appeal deadline with one post-judgment motion and then, after the district court disposes of that motion, reset the deadline again with a second motion. Otherwise litigants could forever stall the appeal clock.
Post-Judgment Motions After the Grant of an Earlier Motion
But what if the district court grants a Rule 59(e) motion and alters the original judgment? In FTC v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., the Supreme Court held that an amended judgment starts a new appeal period when the amendment (1) changes matters of substance or (2) resolves a genuine ambiguity.
Courts have read Minneapolis-Honeywell to mean that the grant of a Rule 59(e) motion can create a new judgment. That new judgment can provide a new opportunity for post-judgment motions. And those additional post-judgment motions can again reset the appeal deadline.
The Successive Motion in Wilmington Savings
That’s what happened in Wilmington Savings. The district court’s initial judgment carried an incorrect title—it was labeled a motion for summary judgment, which the district court had apparently copied from a party’s filing. The defendants accordingly filed a Rule 59(e) motion that (among many other things) sought to correct the label to make it clear that the district court had entered a final judgment. The district court granted this part of the motion and amended the judgment’s title.
The defendants then filed a second Rule 59(e) motion that rehashed many of the same arguments but also presented “new evidence.” The district court denied this motion, after which the defendants appealed.
A New Judgment & New Post-Judgment Opportunity
If the time to appeal was calculated from the disposition of the first Rule 59(e) motion, the defendants’ appeal in Wilmington Savings was late. But the Fifth Circuit held that the appeal clock started with the disposition of the second motion.
Given the mis-titling, the district court’s initial judgment was unclear as to its legal effect. That created a “genuine ambiguity” under Minneapolis-Honeywell.
So the correction of that ambiguity started a new appeal clock. The second Rule 59(e) motion then reset that clock. And the defendants appealed within 30 days of the district court’s denying their second motion.
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Myers, 2024 WL 1146658 (5th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024), available at the Fifth 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
Disclosure: I filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of rehearing its decision in this case and discussed the cert petition with the petitioner’s counsel. Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Parrish v. United States. The case asks if a would-be appellant must file a second notice of appeal after […]
Continue reading....
In Blackwell v. Nocerini, the Sixth Circuit held that a motion to reconsider reset the time to take a qualified-immunity appeal. The denial of immunity was immediately appealable and thus a “judgment” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So a motion to reconsider that denial was effectively a motion under Federal Rule of Civil […]
Continue reading....
In Gelin v. Baltimore County, the Fourth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) applies to appealable interlocutory orders. So a motion to reconsider such an order resets the time to appeal. The court added that a motion can effectively be one seeking reconsideration even though the motion does not cite to Federal […]
Continue reading....
In Christmas v. Hooper, the Fifth Circuit held that the prison-mailbox rule applies to notices of appeal mistakenly sent to a court of appeals. In doing so, the court had to resolve a tension between two portions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. Rule 4(c)(1) says that an imprisoned appellant’s notice of appeal is […]
Continue reading....
In Malek v. Feigenbaum, the Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The court went on to hold that although Rule 4 is a claims-processing rule, it is a mandatory one that is not subject […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
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....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
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....