Tag Archives: Appellate Jurisdiction

Even Where the Underlying Defense Is Qualified Immunity, There is No Collateral-Order Appeal from a District Court’s Denying a Dispositive Motion That Exceeds the Page Limits Set by Local Rules, Holds Tenth Circuit

In Jefferson v. Moore, No. 25-3020 (10th Cir. June 5, 2026), the Tenth Circuit dismisses an appeal of a qualified immunity defense where the district court “denied the motion without prejudice” because “Defendants’ motion exceeded the page limits set by the local rules and, alternatively, that their motion for summary judgment was premature.” In responseContinue reading “Even Where the Underlying Defense Is Qualified Immunity, There is No Collateral-Order Appeal from a District Court’s Denying a Dispositive Motion That Exceeds the Page Limits Set by Local Rules, Holds Tenth Circuit”

District Court’s Failure to Adjudicate Qualified Immunity “At the Earliest Possible Stage in the Litigation” Subject to Appeal Under Collateral-Order Doctrine, Holds Fifth Circuit

In Wertenbroch v. Hardeman, No. 25-40616 (5th Cir. June 3, 2026), the Fifth Circuit holds that even a non-response by a district court to a motion for qualified immunity can serve as an “implicit denial . . . that is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.” Plaintiffs sued the City Manager of Pittsburg, Texas forContinue reading “District Court’s Failure to Adjudicate Qualified Immunity “At the Earliest Possible Stage in the Litigation” Subject to Appeal Under Collateral-Order Doctrine, Holds Fifth Circuit”

“Administrative Termination” of a Post-Judgment Motion Did Not “Dispos[e] Of” It for Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) Tolling Purposes, Holds Eleventh Circuit

In Khatabi v. Car Auto Holdings LLC, No. 24-12573 (11th Cir. May 28, 2026), the Eleventh Circuit holds that the “administrative termination” of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 and 59 motions to facilitate a post-trial mediation was not sufficiently conclusive to restart the 30-day clock for filing an appeal under Fed. R. App. P.Continue reading ““Administrative Termination” of a Post-Judgment Motion Did Not “Dispos[e] Of” It for Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) Tolling Purposes, Holds Eleventh Circuit”

Two Circuits Address Scott v. Harris and Video Evidence in Assessing Qualified Immunity for Police Officers Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

In Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp., No. 24-3983 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026) and Perez v. Guetschow, No. 25-1617 (7th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026), two panels decide interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity decisions under 42 U.S.C. §1983 where the central issue is video evidence, per Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). In each case,Continue reading “Two Circuits Address Scott v. Harris and Video Evidence in Assessing Qualified Immunity for Police Officers Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”

Fourth Circuit Holds That Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice Can Be Remedied by Plaintiff Waiver in Appellate Briefing or Argument

In Metz v. McCarthy, No. 24-1820 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026), the Fourth Circuit holds that a stipulation in the district court of dismissal without prejudice, which would deprive the court of appellate jurisdiction, can be repaired on appeal by the expedient of the plaintiff agreeing in briefing or argument that dismissal of all claimsContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Holds That Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice Can Be Remedied by Plaintiff Waiver in Appellate Briefing or Argument”

Splitting With the Fifth Circuit, First Circuit Holds That a Third-Party Claim May Bring a Case Within Appellate Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3)

In United States v. Ernst Jacob GmbH & Co. KG, No. 23-1969 (1st Cir. Oct. 23, 2025), the First Circuit rejects a holding in the Fifth Circuit and holds that a third-party defendant’s complaint for subrogation or contribution is enough to give a U.S. Court of Appeals jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.Continue reading “Splitting With the Fifth Circuit, First Circuit Holds That a Third-Party Claim May Bring a Case Within Appellate Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3)”

Eleventh Circuit Closes Off Resort to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) to Dismiss Remaining Claims as an Expedient to Appeal Contested Claims Dismissed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)

The Eleventh Circuit, in CMYK Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Print Technologies, LLC, No. 24-13766 (11th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025), rejects a common tactic used by parties to speed-up the appeal of a partial dispositive order, i.e., voluntarily dismissing the remaining claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). The panel holds that, by its plain terms,Continue reading “Eleventh Circuit Closes Off Resort to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) to Dismiss Remaining Claims as an Expedient to Appeal Contested Claims Dismissed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)”

Eleventh Circuit Holds That Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 and 41(a) Permits the Dismissal of a Single Plaintiff in a Multiple-Plaintiff Case, Provided That All of Their Claims Are Dismissed

The Eleventh Circuit in Weinstein v. 440 Corp., No. 23-13807 (11th Cir, July 25, 2025), holds that there is a final judgment when an individual plaintiff in a multi-plaintiff case voluntarily dismisses all of their claims against all defendants in a case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 or 41(a). Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiffContinue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds That Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 and 41(a) Permits the Dismissal of a Single Plaintiff in a Multiple-Plaintiff Case, Provided That All of Their Claims Are Dismissed”

En Banc Fifth Circuit Holds That Waiver-Based Remand Orders Are Appealable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Overruling the Circuit’s Long-Standing Contrary Authority

In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, No. 23-20337 (5th Cir. May 16, 2025) (en banc), the Fifth Circuit unanimously overrules a 45-year-old circuit precedent and holds that an order remanding a removed case based on the defendant’s alleged waiver by participation in a state-court case falls within the court’s appellate jurisdictionContinue reading “En Banc Fifth Circuit Holds That Waiver-Based Remand Orders Are Appealable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Overruling the Circuit’s Long-Standing Contrary Authority”

Eleventh Circuit Holds That There Is No Appellate Jurisdiction Over an Order That Both Denies Arbitration and Remands a Removed Case to State Court, Per 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)

In Wu v. Liu, No. 24-10397 (11th Cir. Mar. 19, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit has to reconcile 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which bars appellate review of a district court remand of a removed case, and 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(C), which affirmatively grants appellate jurisdiction to review orders denying arbitration. For an order that both deniesContinue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds That There Is No Appellate Jurisdiction Over an Order That Both Denies Arbitration and Remands a Removed Case to State Court, Per 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)”