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.