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
In People ex rel Harrison v. Express Scripts, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that an appeal from a remand order does not automatically stay the remand. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit weighed in on the split over whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski requires a stay after a remand appeal. […]
Continue reading....
In United States v. Riojas, the Fifth Circuit held that the government can waive or forfeit the waivers inherent in an unconditional guilty plea. That’s because waiver (as the Fifth Circuit recently said in an unrelated context) is not jurisdictional. So there is no requirement that a court of appeals raise or enforce an unconditional […]
Continue reading....
In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review an order that narrowed the potential injunctive relief in an action. The plaintiff in Union Pacific sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from bringing certain claims against the plaintiff. The district court rejected some […]
Continue reading....
May saw several decisions on effective injunction denials. One of those decisions raised an interesting question about the Supreme Court’s test for when a district court order effective denies a preliminary injunction. In other developments, the Fifth Circuit sat en banc to jettison its rule barring review of waiver-based remands. Other decisions addressed the finality […]
Continue reading....
In Heidi Group, Inc.v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of federal and state immunities but declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over other issues. In the course of doing so, one judge questioned the collateral-order doctrine’s application to state immunities, and the entire court questioned the doctrine of […]
Continue reading....