The Sixth Circuit on Manufactured Appeals and Rule 54(b)


January 22, 2020
By Bryan Lammon

The courts of appeals occasionally struggle with appellate jurisdiction when parties dismiss some of their claims without prejudice. The issue comes up when a district court has resolved some of the claims in a multi-claim suit and parties try to transform that non-final decision into a final one by dismissing their remaining claims without prejudice. Courts hold that parties cannot manufacture an appeal this way. Parties instead must obtain a Rule 54(b) certification, which allows district courts to certify for immediate appeal a decision resolving some (but not all) claims in a multi-claim suit.

The Sixth Circuit yesterday rejected one of these manufactured appeals. In Novia Communications, LLC v. Weatherby, the plaintiff had tried to take a belt-and-suspenders approach to appellate jurisdiction, voluntarily dismissing its unresolved claims and securing a Rule 54(b) certification. But the Sixth Circuit held that neither action gave the court jurisdiction. The voluntary dismissal of three unresolved claims did not make the resolution of other claims final and appealable. And the Rule 54(b) certification was improper because it did not explain why an immediate appeal was warranted. Also of interest, the court went on to suggest that a Rule 54(b) certification might not be proper in any event due to the relationship between the resolved and unresolved claims.

The many claims in Novia Communications

The dispute in Novia Communications arose out of a failed asset-purchase agreement for a local television station. (Very local for my purposes, as it was Channel 48 in Toledo, Ohio.) The plaintiff brought several claims, of which only six are relevant to the present discussion: four breach-of-contract claims concerning the failed asset-purchase agreement and two torts claims (tortious interference and fraud). The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on three of the four breach-of-contract claims. The district court then approved a consent judgment that entered (1) a stipulated dismissal on the fourth breach-of-contract claim and the two tort claims and (2) a Rule 54(b) certification for the three claims that were resolved at summary judgment. The plaintiff then appealed its loss on those three claims.

The Sixth Circuit dismisses the appeal

The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction for two reasons.

The improper manufactured appeal

First, and putting aside the Rule 54(b) certification for a moment, the district court’s decision was not a final one. Dismissals without prejudice preclude finality when a party reserves the option of refiling the dismissed claims in federal court regardless of the appeal’s outcome. We don’t want parties manufacturing what are essentially interlocutory appeals by voluntarily dismissing their outstanding claims without prejudice, appealing, and then refiling the voluntarily dismissed claims. That would be an end-run around the final-judgment rule and frustrate that rule’s purposes. And that is precisely what the plaintiff had done in Novia Communications. In fact, the plaintiff expressly reserved the right to reassert its dismissed claims after the appeal. So the voluntary dismissal did not secure appellate jurisdiction.

The improper Rule 54(b) certification

Second, the Rule 54(b) certification was ineffective. Again, Rule 54(b) allows district courts to certify for immediate appeal the resolution of some (but not all) claims in a multi-claim or multi-party suit. In Novia Communications, the order seemed to do that; the judge had signed the certification and said that there was no just reason for delay (which are normally magic words in the Rule 54(b) context). But the Sixth Circuit requires that district courts state their reasons for certifying an order under Rule 54(b). Granted, nothing in Rule 54(b) requires this reason-giving. The Novia Communications court was nevertheless bound by the Sixth Circuit’s caselaw on this matter. Because the district court gave no reasons for certifying its decision, the certification was improper and did not supply appellate jurisdiction.

The Sixth Circuit nevertheless said that the parties could try and fix this problem by obtaining a proper certification. And if they did, the court would reinstate the fully briefed and argued appeal.

But the Sixth Circuit also questioned the propriety of a Rule 54(b) certification. Certification is proper only when the district court has resolved a distinct claim. This ensures that the issues raised in the certified appeal are sufficiently separate from any that remain pending in the district court. And it was not clear that the certified claims—three breach-of-contract claims concerning the failed asset-purchase agreement—were sufficiently distinct from a claim that had been dismissed without prejudice—the fourth breach-of-contract claim concerning that agreement.

Novia Communications, LLC v. Weatherby, 2020 WL 289199 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020), available at the Sixth 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 Contact

Related 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....

Federal courts of appeals have spent a lot of energy determining whether litigants can appeal after a dismissal without prejudice. Some courts have declared that these dismissals are final decisions and thus generally appealable. And some courts—sometimes the same courts, albeit in different opinions—announce the opposite rule: that dismissals without prejudice are not generally appealable. […]

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....

The general, well-known, and riddled-with-exceptions rule is that a decision is not final until the district court has resolved all of the parties’ claims. So what should courts do when the district court overlooks a claim or theory of relief that one of the parties had pleaded? A handful of recent decisions have raised this […]

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....

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....