The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: October 10–16, 2021

Last week saw three decisions of note. The Sixth Circuit held that discovery orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 are “final decisions” for purposes of appeal. Proceedings under § 1782 exist entirely to obtain discovery. So the discovery order marks the end of litigation and is a final, appealable decision. In so holding, the Sixth Circuit joined several other circuits that have addressed the issue.

The Eleventh Circuit issued two decisions of note. In one, the court dismissed an appeal because the notice of appeal designated a nullified judgment. The plaintiff appealed after the district court had withdrawn its order dismissing a case, which rendered the initial judgment ineffective. The notice of appeal also was not effective to appeal the subsequent judgment, which was entered hours after the plaintiff appealed. In another case, the Eleventh Circuit reiterated its rule that it would not address a plaintiff’s standing as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The court could resolve any immunity issues without considering standing.

• The Sixth Circuit Joined Other Courts in Holding That § 1782 Discovery Orders Are Final
• The Eleventh Circuit Dismissed an Appeal That Designated a Nullified Judgment
• The Eleventh Circuit Refused to Review Standing as Part of a Qualified-Immunity Appeal

The Sixth Circuit Joined Other Courts in Holding That § 1782 Discovery Orders Are Final

In Luxshare, Ltd. v. ZF Automotive US, Inc., the Sixth Circuit held that a discovery order under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Discovery orders are normally interlocutory and thus not appealable. But § 1782 orders are different. A proceeding under § 1782 exists entirely to seek discovery for use in a foreign court. So once the district court resolves the discovery dispute, the case is over. The Sixth Circuit accordingly joined several other circuits in holding that § 1782 orders are final.

Luxshare, Ltd. v. ZF Automotive US, Inc., 2021 WL 4771732 (6th Cir. Oct. 13, 2021), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw.

The Eleventh Circuit Dismissed an Appeal That Designated a Nullified Judgment

In Estate of Jennings v. Gulfshore Private Home Care, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal because the notice of appeal designated a judgment that had been nullified by the district court’s withdrawing the underlying order.

The district court in Jennings initially granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, dismissed the action, and entered judgment. Later that day, the district court vacated its opinion and order and stated that it would issue an amended decision. The next day, before the district court had entered an amended decision, the plaintiff appealed. The notice of appeal designated the judgment that was based on the then-vacated summary-judgment order. And later that day, the district court entered a new opinion and order, dismissed the action, and entered judgment. By the looks of the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion, this subsequent judgment was substantively the same as the earlier one. The plaintiff did not amend its notice of appeal to designate this subsequent judgment.

The Eleventh Circuit said that the notice of appeal was ineffective. A notice of appeal must designate (among other things) the judgment or order that is being appealed. And according to the Eleventh Circuit, by the time the plaintiff in Jennings filed its notice, the judgment it designated had become a nullity. The district court had withdrawn the opinion and order on which that judgment depended. Without that order, there was no final decision and nothing to appeal. So the judgment entered on the first day was null. Granted, the district court entered another judgment shortly after the plaintiff appealed. But the notice of appeal could not be read to designate that subsequent judgment, as the notice came before that judgment existed. With no proper designation in the notice of appeal, the notice was insufficient and the Eleventh Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction.

Estate of Jennings v. Gulfshore Private Home Care, LLC, 2021 WL 4817710 (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2021), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw.

The Eleventh Circuit Refused to Review Standing as Part of a Qualified-Immunity Appeal

In Joseph v. Chronister, the Eleventh Circuit noted that it would not address Article III standing as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. Joseph involved several constitutional claims stemming from the death of a child at the Florida State Fair. In the their appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, the defendants argued (among other things) that the plaintiff had not shown that the child’s death was fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct. The Eleventh Circuit reiterated its rule that the court could not review Article III standing as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. Immunity, the Eleventh Circuit has explained, can be resolved without reviewing standing.

Joseph v. Chronister, 2021 WL 4739608 (11th Cir. Oct. 12, 2021), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw.