The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: November 27–December 3, 2022

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 jurisdiction to review compassionate-release denials. And the Eleventh Circuit explained that FLSA collective actions are not final until the district court addresses the claims of every opt-in plaintiff. Plus finality in § 2255 resentencing orders and a rejected attempt at municipal piggybacking.

• A Court Acknowledged & Applied the Rule 3(c) Amendments
• The Sixth Circuit on Reviewing Class Certification in an Injunction Appeal
• The Fourth Circuit Held That It Had Jurisdiction to Review the Denial of Compassionate Release
• The Eleventh Circuit on Finality in FLSA Cases
• The Tenth Circuit on Finality of Resentencing Orders
• The Eleventh Circuit Rejected an Attempt at Municipal Piggybacking

A Court Acknowledged & Applied the Rule 3(c) Amendments

In Lee v. Northern Metropolitan Foundation for Healthcare, Inc, the Second Circuit held that a notice of appeal encompassed all of the district court’s decisions.

Lee arose from a False Claims Act action. The district court entered judgment on partial findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), and the plaintiffs designated that order in their notice of appeal. On appeal, the plaintiffs also sought review of an earlier discovery order. The defendant responded that the order designation placed the discovery order outside the scope of appeal.

The Second Circuit rejected that argument. The notice of appeal designated the “Rule 52(c) order, which adjudicated all remaining claims and the rights and liabilities of all remaining parties.” Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(5)(A) says that this designation should be read to encompass the final judgment. And a notice that designates the final judgment brings up for appeal all orders—such as interlocutory discovery orders—that merge into the final judgment.

In a footnote, the Second Circuit added that it would apply the amendments retroactively. The court saw “nothing unjust or impracticable about retroactively applying the amendments to Rule 3 and [was] aware of no prejudice that [the defendant] could have suffered from having to defend the evidentiary issues on the merits notwithstanding [the plaintiffs’] inartful drafting of the notice of appeal.”

Lee v. Northern Metropolitan Foundation for Healthcare, Inc, 2022 WL 17366627 (2d Cir. Dec. 2, 2022), available at CourtListener and Westlaw

The Sixth Circuit on Reviewing Class Certification in an Injunction Appeal

In Doster v. Kendall, the Sixth Circuit reviewed the propriety of class certification in an appeal from a class-wide injunction.

The court explained that appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) are not limited “to the four corners of the injunction order.” After all, “a plaintiff could not show the ‘probability of success on the merits’ required to obtain an injunction if the plaintiff would lose on a predicate issue that would prohibit a court from issuing it.” And if the district court erred in certifying the class, the district court could not have issued a class-wide injunction.

Doster v. Kendall, 2022 WL 17261374 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2022), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw

The Fourth Circuit Held That It Had Jurisdiction to Review the Denial of Compassionate Release

In United States v. Ferguson, the Fourth Circuit held that has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the denial of compassionate release.

The Fourth Circuit had reviewed these denials in the past, though it had not addressed its jurisdiction to do so. In Ferguson, the court joined several other circuits in holding that § 1291—not 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)—supplied jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit noted that § 3742(a) was inappropriate, as it could limit the scope of review in a compassionate-release case. And § 3742(a) does not speak of sentence modification—it applies to initial sentences or resentencing. Relying on § 3742(a) would thus permit courts of appeals to review only grants of compassionate release, not denials.

United States v. Ferguson, 2022 WL 17256572 (4th Cir. Nov. 29, 2022), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw

The Eleventh Circuit on Finality in FLSA Cases

In Adams v. Palm Beach County, the Eleventh Circuit held that the failure to resolve the claims of FLSA opt-in plaintiffs precluded finality.

In a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, non-named plaintiffs can opt-in to join the action. That happened in Adams—the plaintiffs filed suit, and two additional plaintiffs opted into the case.

The district court eventually dismissed the named plaintiffs’ claims. But the district court did not mention the opt-in plaintiffs. Because the opt-in plaintiffs remained part of the case, the district court’s decision did not resolve all of the claims against all of the parties. There was thus no final decision, and the named plaintiffs’ appeal was premature.

Adams v. Palm Beach County, 2022 WL 17246908 (11th Cir. Nov. 28, 2022), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw

The Tenth Circuit on Finality of Resentencing Orders

In United States v. Kearn, the Tenth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a resentencing order issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 until after resentencing.

The district court vacated the defendant’s sentence under § 2255 due to ineffective assistance of counsel in plea discussions As a remedy, the court ordered the government to re-offer an earlier plea deal. The defendant said he would accept the plea, and the district court scheduled resentencing. But before that hearing, the government appealed.

The Tenth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction. Under Andrews v. United States, § 2255 proceedings are not final until after resentencing.

United States v. Kearn, 2022 WL 17366064 (10th Cir. Dec. 2, 2022), available at the Tenth Circuit and Westlaw

The Eleventh Circuit Rejected an Attempt at Municipal Piggybacking

Finally, in Dixon v. City of Birmingham, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed a municipality’s attempt to piggyback on its employee’s qualified-immunity appeal. The court explained that the municipal issues—whether the county had an unconstitutional policy—had nothing to do with whether a police officer was entitled to immunity.

Dixon v. City of Birmingham, 2022 WL 17247554 (11th Cir. Nov. 28, 2022), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw