The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: October 3–9, 2021


October 12, 2021
By Bryan Lammon

Once again, there are only a few decisions of note from the last week. The Fifth Circuit explained that litigants can wait until the entry of a final judgment before moving to reconsider an interlocutory decision. And the Third Circuit refused to use pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to amend alongside an injunction appeal.

In Supreme Court developments, the Court denied cert in In re Grand Jury Investigation, which asked whether a claim of privilege was necessary to take a Perlman appeal. And the government filed its response to the cert petition in Omwega v. Garland, which asks if immigration’s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional.

The Fifth Circuit on “Judgments” and the Time for Filing Rule 59(e) Motions

In Van Tiem v. First American Title Co., the Fifth Circuit explained that an interlocutory order dismissing some of a plaintiffs’ claims is not a “judgment” for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a). So a party could wait until the district court resolved all claims before seeking reconsideration.

Simplifying a bit, Van Tiem involved a variety of claims against the plaintiff’s former employer and related parties. The district court dismissed most of those claims on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Over a year later, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the one remaining claim.

The plaintiff then moved to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Insofar as the plaintiff sought reconsideration of the summary-judgment decision, the district court denied the request. But as to the earlier motion-to-dismiss decision, the district court deemed the Rule 59(e) motion untimely. Those motions must come within 28 days of a judgment, and more than a year had passed since the motion-to-dismiss decision. The plaintiff then appealed. The defendants responded that the appeal was untimely insofar as the plaintiff challenged the motion-to-dismiss decision.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the defendants’ jurisdictional argument. The district court had treated the motion-to-dismiss decision as if it was a “judgment,” such that any Rule 59(e) motion would need to be filed within 28 days. But under Rule 54(a), a “judgment” is “any order from which an appeal lies.” And the grant of the motion to dismiss was an interlocutory, non-appealable decision. There was no appealable decision—and thus no judgment—until the district court had resolved all of the claims. The plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion was filed within 28 days of that decision. And that motion delayed the start of the appeal clock until the district court resolved it.

Van Tiem v. First American Title Co., 2021 WL 4537689 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2021), available at the Fifth Circuit and Westlaw.

The Tenth Circuit Rejected Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction in an Injunction Appeal

In Vreeland v. Huss, the Thenth Circuit refused to extend pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to amend. The plaintiff in Vreeland had appealed from the denial of a preliminary injunction, which the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court could address the propriety of the injunction denial without considering whether the plaintiff should have been able to amend his complaint. Pendent appellate jurisdiction was thus improper.

Vreeland v. Huss, 2021 WL 4544077 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2021), available at the Tenth Circuit and Westlaw.

Cert Denied on Perlman Appeals & Claims of Privilege

The Supreme Court denied cert in In re Grand Jury Investigation. The case asked if Perlman appeals require a claim of privilege or instead required only a substantial interest in the material subject to discovery.

Response Filed on Immigration Exhaustion

The government filed its response to the cert petition in Omwega v. Garland. The case asks if immigration’s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. Most courts have held that it is—a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review any issue not exhausted before the immigration courts. But not everyone agrees. And a few judges have recently raised doubts about the cases deeming exhaustion jurisdictional. You can read more about the cert petition and the split over jurisdictionality here.

Brief for the Respondent in Opposition, Omwega v. Garland, No. 20-1395 (Sep. 29, 2021), available at 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 Contact

Related 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 Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]

Continue reading....

In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.

Continue reading....

Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]

Continue reading....

In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.

Continue reading....

In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]

Continue reading....