The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: November 22–28, 2020
The holiday week produced two decisions of note. In one, the Eleventh Circuit held that a judgment on the merits of a Fair Labor Standards Act claim is final despite any outstanding issues of attorneys’ fees. And the Third Circuit applied its rule that litigants can immediately appeal Rhines stays in habeas cases.
- The Eleventh Circuit on Finality and Attorneys’ Fees in Fair Labor Standards Act Cases
- The Third Circuit on Appealing Rhines Stays
The Eleventh Circuit on Finality and Attorneys’ Fees in Fair Labor Standards Act Cases
In Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit held that the normal rules on finality and attorneys’ fees apply in Fair Labor Standards Act cases.
Simplifying a bit, the plaintiff in Vasconcelo sued his employer for unpaid wages, alleging that he was owed about $6,400 dollars under the Act. A jury found for the plaintiff. But it awarded him just under $100 in damages. The plaintiff then sought attorneys’ fees. While the parties litigated fees, the district court entered a final judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. A few months later, the district court awarded the plaintiff about a third of the requested fees. The plaintiff then appealed both the jury verdict and the fee award.
The Eleventh Circuit held that the notice of appeal was untimely as to the jury verdict. A decision that resolves all claims is final despite any outstanding issues involving attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff accordingly had 30 days to appeal after the district court entered the final judgment. But he waited until after the district court resolved the fees issue, which was well outside that 30-day window.
The Eleventh Circuit noted that it had once held that parties can wait to appeal both the judgment and fees in Fair Labor Standards Act cases. The court thought that fees were such an integral part of any award in these cases that a final determination of fees was a necessary part of a final, appealable judgment. But the Supreme Court abrogated that holding in Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. Granted, the Supreme Court’s decisions in this area did not specifically address claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But those decisions adopted a uniform rule for all cases. So no exception could be made for Fair Labor Standards Act cases.
The Eleventh Circuit accordingly lacked jurisdiction to review the jury’s decision. It did, however, have jurisdiction to review the fees decision; the notice of appeal was timely as to that decision. And it affirmed the district court’s fees award.
Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, Inc., 2020 WL 6947855 (11th Cir. Nov. 25, 2020), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw.
The Third Circuit on Appealing Rhines Stays
In Randall v. Superintendent, Mahonoy SCI, the Third Circuit heard an appeal from a Rhines stay-and-abey order.
Randall involved a habeas proceeding in federal court. The petitioner had not exhausted all of his claims in state court (as is generally required for bringing a federal habeas petition). But rather than dismiss the action, the district court stayed it under Rhines v. Weber. The petitioner then appealed.
The Third Circuit has held that parties can immediately appeal these stay-and-abey orders via the collateral-order doctrine. Other circuits disagree, and the Supreme Court denied a cert petition on this issue about a year ago. Randall noted that the Supreme Court has not overruled the Third Circuit’s precedent on appealing stay-and-abey order. So the court had jurisdiction over the appeal.
On the merits, the Third Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in staying the action.
Randall v. Superintendent, Mahonoy SCI, 2020 WL 7007954 (3d Cir. Nov. 25, 2020), available at the Third 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
It’s the fourth annual winter-break edition of the weekly roundup. As I have in previous years, I took a few weeks off from Final Decisions. But I’m back with a roundup covering the last three weeks of 2022. Those weeks saw a pair of collateral-order decisions, the effect of Nasrallah v. Barr on other kinds […]
Continue reading....
There were three cases of note from last week. The Third Circuit held that notices of appeal do not encompass post-notice decisions. Litigants must file a second notice, or amend the first, to appeal those decisions. The D.C. Circuit held that it could not review a facial challenge to a statute in an injunction appeal […]
Continue reading....
There were a bunch of interesting decisions last week. In the continuing saga of the Rule 3(c) amendments, the Second Circuit acknowledged them and applied them retroactively. In other decisions, the Sixth Circuit explained that it could review class certification in an appeal from a class-wide injunction. The Fourth Circuit clarified the basis for its […]
Continue reading....
I took a break from the roundup last week, but I’m back with a double-sized edition. In the last two weeks, another circuit didn’t recognize that the recent Rule 3(c) amendments abrogated its caselaw. The Eleventh Circuit determined that a stay put an action in “suspended animation,” thereby allowing an appeal from the stay. The […]
Continue reading....
Last week, the Tenth Circuit once again used a pro se plaintiff’s notice of appeal to limit the scope of its review despite recent amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). The Second Circuit gave a thorough explanation of its jurisdiction over decisions made in post-judgment proceedings. The Fifth Circuit heard an appeal from […]
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....