The misapplication of the Rule 3(c) amendments, appeals from decisions in post-judgment proceedings, abstention appeals, and reversing orders allowing § 1292(b) and Rule 54(b) appeals.
November 16, 2022
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 a Brillhart stay. And two courts reversed orders that would have permitted an interlocutory appeal.
- The Tenth Circuit & Amended Rule 3(c)
- The Second Circuit on Appeals from Post-Judgment Proceedings
- The Fifth Circuit on Stay Appeals
- Reversing Orders Permitting Interlocutory Appeal
The Tenth Circuit & Amended Rule 3(c)
Several courts of appeals have limited the scope of an appeal to the orders designated in a notice of appeal. Recent amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) were supposed to end that practice. These amendments became effective last December. Yet some courts have overlooked these changes, continuing to apply caselaw that the amendments abrogated.
When the Tenth Circuit did so in Dawson v. Archambeau, Sean Marotta and I decided to try and do something about it. We filed an amicus brief pointing out that the court had neglected to apply the new rule. The Tenth Circuit responded with a second opinion saying that the amended Rule 3(c) did not apply to notices filed before the amendments’ effective date. Sean and I disagreed with that conclusion. So we filed a second amicus brief, this time asking the court to sit en banc to address the retroactivity of the Rule 3(c) amendments.
Last week, the Tenth Circuit adhered to its conclusion that the notice of appeal limited the scope of the appeal to the designated order. The court said that even if the amended Rule 3(c) applied, the appealed order did not merge into a subsequent judgment to which Rule 3(c) would apply. This conclusion can’t possibly be correct. But it looks like the end of the road for this effort.
For more on Dawson, see my post Trying to Get a Court to Apply Rule 3(c).
Dawson v. Archambeau, 2022 WL 16748511 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2022), available at the Tenth Circuit and Westlaw
The Second Circuit on Appeals from Post-Judgment Proceedings
In Amara v. Cigna Corporation, the Second Circuit dismissed part of an appeal from a post-judgment order and limited its review of another.
Simplifying a fair bit, Amara involved a successful class action against a pension plan. In post-judgment proceedings, the district court resolved several disputes between the parties about how to calculate the benefits owed to the class members. About a year later, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. The plaintiffs then appealed. And in that appeal, they sought review of both the calculation orders and the denial of sanctions.
The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely insofar as it challenged the calculation orders and limited its review of the sanctions order. 28 U.S.C. § 1291’s grant of jurisdiction over “final decisions” applies to appeals in post-judgment proceedings. But as the opinion explains at some length, determining when a decision is final in post-judgment proceedings can be difficult. Courts of appeals often approach these issues pragmatically (for more on finality in post-judgment proceedings, see the article I wrote on the pragmatic approach to finality). The Second Circuit offered three guidelines. First, “a district court’s post-judgment order is final when it has finally disposed of a question and there are no pending proceedings raising related questions.” (Cleaned up.) Second, the decision must be substantive, not merely ministerial. And third, review is limited to the questions addressed in the decision, not to prior decisions.
Once the district court issued the last of its orders on how to calculate benefits, it had fully resolved the calculations issue. At that point, those decisions were final and appealable. And the time to appeal those orders—30 days—began running. The plaintiffs’ appeal, filed about a year later, was thus untimely.
As for the sanctions order, the appeal was timely. But the appeal from that order was limited to the issues addressed in the district court’s sanctions decision. The plaintiffs could not use this appeal to challenge the district court’s prior orders.
Amara v. Cigna Corporation, 2022 WL 16842742 (2d Cir. Nov. 10, 2022), available at CourtListener and Westlaw
The Fifth Circuit on Stay Appeals
In Koch Product Solutions, L.L.C. v. Alliance Process Partners, L.L.C., the Fifth Circuit reviewed an order staying litigation in favor of state court proceedings.
Koch Product involved separate state and federal proceedings. Simplifying a bit, the defendant in the state court proceedings brought third-party claims against affiliates of the Koch Product plaintiff. That plaintiff then brought a federal declaratory-judgment action against the state-court defendant—making that party also the federal-court defendant—“to remove the cloud over its name” that arose from the defendant’s allegations in the state court suit. The district court stayed the federal proceedings pending resolution of the state proceedings. The federal plaintiff then appealed.
The Fifth Circuit held that it could review the stay order. Stay orders normally are not final, appealable decisions. But an exception can apply in cases of abstention when the abstention order puts a federal plaintiff effectively out of court—that is, when the stay requires most or all of the issues in the federal suit to be litigated in the state forum.
This exception applied in Koch Product. The district court’s stay—which was governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America—effectively put the federal plaintiff out of court. Granted, there was some possibility that the state proceedings would not have a preclusive effect in the federal litigation (the parties in the two proceedings were not identical, nor was privity clear). But the stay caused a “protracted and indefinite” delay in the federal proceedings, effectively putting the federal plaintiff out of court. The Fifth Circuit added that submitting periodic status reports to the district court did not result in a lack of finality; the district court was unlikely to revisit its decision to stay the case.
Koch Product Solutions, L.L.C. v. Alliance Process Partners, L.L.C., 2022 WL 16859961 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2022), available at the Fifth Circuit and Westlaw
Reversing Orders Permitting Interlocutory Appeal
Finally, two courts reversed district court decisions that would have permitted an interlocutory appeal.
In Robinson v. Akal Security, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit vacated a partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The court of appeals disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that the unresolved claims involved distinct legal and factual issues. A partial judgment was thus inappropriate, as separate appellate panels might have to retread the same law and facts in separate appeals. The Eleventh Circuit added that the lack of opposition to a Rule 54(b) partial judgment does not eliminate the concerns over piecemeal and duplicative appeals.
And in Walmart Real Estate Business v. Quarterfield Partners LLC, the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court’s certification of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court thought that its decision on the interpretation of certain leases warranted an immediate appeal. But the Fourth Circuit explained that the district court’s decision “simply applied settled principles of Maryland law to interpret the particular terms of the leases at issue.” So there was no controlling question of law for the court of appeals to address.
Robinson v. Akal Security, Inc., 2022 WL 16739124 (11th Cir. Nov. 7, 2022), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw
Walmart Real Estate Business v. Quarterfield Partners LLC, 2022 WL 16859737 (4th Cir. Nov. 10, 2022), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw