Appellate Decisions

The Appeal Deadline & Subsequent Rule 59(e) Motions

The Fifth Circuit held that the grant of a Rule 59(e) motion that resolved an ambiguity in the original judgment allowed a second Rule 59(e) motion to reset the appeal clock.

March 20, 2024

By Bryan Lammon

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

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

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.
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?
Another Dated Discussion of Rule 3(c)
The Ninth Circuit provided another outdated discussion of Rule 3(c) and the order-designation requirement, overlooking the 2021 amendments to that rule.
Reconsidering Motions-Panel Decisions on Appeal Dismissals
A divided Eighth Circuit held that a merits panel could review a motions panel’s denial of a motion to dismiss an appeal. The court went on to hold that a purported Rule 59(e) motion did not reset the appeal clock.
Appealing Future Orders
The Fourth Circuit made the widely accepted (yet often implicit) point that a notice of appeal must come after the decision a litigant wants to appeal.