The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: September 6–12, 2020

Last week saw what I think is the first opinion on the timeliness of an appeal from a pre-Hall judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law is required to file a renewed motion under Rule 50(b). The Sixth Circuit also addressed its jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment on a probable-cause issue after the case had gone to trial. Plus the Second Circuit heard an immediate appeal involving an attorney’s lien.

• Appealing Pre-Hall Judgments
• The Sixth Circuit on Rule 50 Motions
• The Sixth Circuit on Appealing Denials of Summary Judgment & Probable Cause
• The Second Circuit on Appealing an Attorney’s Lien

Appealing Pre-Hall Judgments

In Haynes v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., the Second Circuit dismissed as untimely most of the appeals from five actions that had been consolidated in the district court. The procedural history is pretty interesting. Four years ago, the Second Circuit dismissed as premature two appeals from those consolidated proceedings. Under then-applicable circuit law, all actions in consolidated proceedings must be resolved before any of those actions is final and appealable. So the Second Circuit told the plaintiffs to wait until all actions were resolved before they appealed.

Then came the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Hall, which held that the resolution of an action consolidated with others was final and appealable, regardless of whether the other actions remain pending. The plaintiffs in Haynes nevertheless waited until all actions were resolved before appealing them again. The intervening decision in Hall meant that the appeals in four of those five actions were too late.

Notably, the Second Circuit did not definitively resolve how to deal with appeals from pre-Hall judgments. The decision is unpublished and thus non-precedential. And the plaintiffs appear to have forfeited any argument that Hall didn’t require the dismissal of the appeals. So we’ll have to wait for a definitive answer on how parties can appeal pre-Hall judgments, if they can at all.

For more, including a brief discussion of how courts might handle future appeals from pre-Hall judgments, see my post from yesterday, Post-Hall Appeals From Pre-Hall Judgments.

Haynes v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., 2020 WL 5406410 (2d Cir. Sep. 9, 2020), available at CourtListener and Westlaw.

The Sixth Circuit on Rule 50 Motions

In Hanover American Insurance Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that failure to file a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law forfeits the right to renew that motion via Rule 50(b). At the close of evidence, the plaintiff in Hanover Insurance moved for judgment as a matter of law on claims involving only two of the three defendants. That third defendant prevailed at trial. The plaintiff then sought—and obtained—judgment as a matter of law on the claims involving that third defendant.

The Sixth Circuit reversed. It initially held that the district court’s decision was final and appealable despite an outstanding issue of costs. The court went on to hold that there could be no Rule 50(b) motion without a Rule 50(a) motion. So failure to file a Rule 50(a) motion on the claims involving the prevailing defendant forfeited any right to file a Rule 50(b) motion. And the district court’s ambiguous statements on the need to file a Rule 50(a) motion did not excuse the plaintiff’s failure to file. Nor did those statements permit treating the plaintiff as if it had actually moved under Rule 50(a).

For more, see my full post on Hanover American, Don’t Forget Both Rule 50 Motions.

Hanover American Insurance Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, LLC, 2020 WL 5494569 (6th Cir. Sep. 11, 2020), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw.

The Sixth Circuit on Appealing Denials of Summary Judgment & Probable Cause

In Gerics v. Trevino, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review the denial of summary judgment involving issues of probable cause after the case had gone to trial.

Gerics involved false-arrest and unlawful-seizure claims against a sheriff. Before trial, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The district court denied that motion. Although the facts were not disputed, the lawfulness of the arrest and seizure turned on the existence of probable cause. And the district court thought that the existence of probable cause was an issue for the jury. The jury later returned a verdict for the sheriff, and the plaintiff appealed. In that appeal, the plaintiff sought review of only the denial of his summary-judgment motion.

The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. As a general rule, appellate courts cannot review the denial of summary judgment after a trial. An exception to that general rule exists for pure legal questions. After discussing the issue at some length, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the existence of probable cause was a legal question. So once historical facts were established, the ultimate question of probable cause is for the judge, not the jury.

But that did not mean the Sixth Circuit could review the denial of summary judgment. Though a legal question, the existence of probable cause is not a pure legal question. It’s a mixed question of law and fact. And mixed questions of law and fact do not fall under the exception to the general bar on reviewing denials of summary judgment.

Gerics v. Trevino, 2020 WL 5494574 (6th Cir. Sep. 11, 2020), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw.

The Second Circuit on Appealing an Attorney’s Lien

In Joffe v. Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C., the Second Circuit heard an immediate appeal from an order imposing an attorney’s lien on a plaintiff’s potential recovery. The opinion is light on details, but it appears that a law firm withdrew as the plaintiff’s counsel. To ensure it was paid for the work it performed, the firm then obtained a lien on any damages the plaintiff might receive. The Second Circuit has held that plaintiffs can immediately appeal these orders via the collateral-order doctrine. On the merits, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to impose the lien.

Joffe v. Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C., 2020 WL 5494489 (2d Cir. Sep. 11, 2020), available at CourtListener and Westlaw.