The Merger Doctrine After Sanction Dismissals
Courts have long held that the merger doctrine does not apply when an action is dismissed for a failure to prosecute. In Marquez v. Silver, the Second Circuit extended this holding to actions dismissed as a discovery sanction. The court explained that sanction dismissals carry the same risk of strategic behavior as failure-to-prosecute dismissals. The court also noted that if the sanction dismissal was proper, any errors in the district court’s other decisions are irrelevant.
The Sanction Dismissal in Marquez
Simplifying a bit, the district court in Marquez dismissed some of the plaintiff’s claims at the pleading stage. Litigation then proceeded on the plaintiff’s other claims. But the district court eventually dismissed the action as a sanction for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery obligations.
The plaintiff then appealed, seeking review of the district court’s initial dismissal of some of her claims. The plaintiff did not, however, seek to reverse the sanction dismissal.
A Merger Doctrine Exception for Sanction Dismissals
The Second Circuit held that it could not review the district court’s decision dismissing some of the plaintiff’s claims.
The Merger Doctrine & the Failure-to-Prosecute Exception
To be sure, the sanction dismissal ended the action. And under the merger doctrine, interlocutory decisions normally merge into a final judgment. So in an appeal from a final judgment, the scope of appeal normally covers all interlocutory decisions that have not been rendered moot by subsequent events.
But a widespread exception to the merger rule exists when actions are dismissed for a failure to prosecute. Courts are concerned that a litigant aggrieved by an interlocutory order might invite a failure-to-prosecute dismissal in an attempt to secure immediate appellate review of that order. This tactic risks piecemeal appellate review and undermines the existing avenues for interlocutory appeals.
Courts accordingly hold that while the failure-to-prosecute dismissal is itself appealable, prior district court orders do not merge into the final judgment and thus are not within the scope of appeal.
Extending the Exception to Sanction Dismissals
The Second Circuit is among the courts that have applied this merger-doctrine exception for failure-to-prosecute dismissals. And in unpublished decisions, the Second Circuit had applied this exception to sanctions dismissals.
The court concluded that it was time to do so in a published decision. Just like failure-to-prosecute dismissals, applying the normal merger doctrine to sanction dismissals would encourage attempts to circumvent the final-judgment rule by permitting what are essentially interlocutory appeals. And if the sanction dismissal was proper, any earlier interlocutory decisions are irrelevant to the action’s outcome.
The Second Circuit accordingly dismissed the appeal. If the plaintiff wanted to obtain review of the district court decision dismissing some of her claims, she first had to get a court to reverse or vacate the sanction dismissal.
Marquez v. Silver, 2024 WL 1289251 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2024), 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
In United States v. Wilson, the Ninth Circuit permitted the government to appeal a discovery order in a criminal case after the government asked the district court to dismiss the indictment to facilitate an appeal. Although the order was interlocutory, the Ninth Circuit could review it under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. That’s because § 3731 doesn’t require […]
Continue reading....
In Jones v. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, the Fourth Circuit reviewed a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board even though the petitioners voluntarily dismissed some of their theories of relief. That voluntary dismissal was with prejudice, which made it highly unlikely that the voluntarily dismissed theories would ever resurface. So the petitioners were […]
Continue reading....
In New York State Telecommunications Association v. James, the Second Circuit split over an attempt at manufacturing finality. The district court had granted a preliminary injunction after concluding that federal law preempted a New York state law. The parties then stipulated to entry of a final judgment. A majority of the Second Circuit determined that […]
Continue reading....
Last October, the Eleventh Circuit held in Lowery v. Amguard Insurance Co. that litigants can create a final decision by abandoning unresolved claims. As I noted at the time, this holding stood in some tension with the Eleventh Circuit’s rule that litigants cannot voluntarily dismiss discrete claims. And although I liked the outcome, I did […]
Continue reading....
Manufactured finality refers to litigants’ efforts to create a final, appealable decision through something other than a judicial resolution of all claims. The last few years have seen a spate of decisions on manufactured finality. But there is more to the topic than most think. I’ve posted an article explaining as much. In it, I […]
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....