In Gelin v. Baltimore Cnty., No. 23-1541 (4th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024), the Fourth Circuit holds an appeal before it “in abeyance” until the district court decides a pending Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion. The panel has occasion to decide that Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) – which provides that certain motions in theContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Holds Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) Applies to Interlocutory Appeals, Creating a Split with the Eleventh Circuit”
Tag Archives: Appellate Jurisdiction
Attorney’s Fee Award Only Became Final When the District Court “Quantifi[ed]” It, Leading to Partial Dismissal of Appeal by Eighth Circuit
In Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 23-2853 (8th Cir. Sept. 17, 2024), the Eighth Circuit dismisses in part an appeal of sanctions against an employment-discrimination plaintiff because she filed the notice of appeal before the judge below calculated the attorney’s fees, then failed to amend the notice to appeal the fee award. According toContinue reading “Attorney’s Fee Award Only Became Final When the District Court “Quantifi[ed]” It, Leading to Partial Dismissal of Appeal by Eighth Circuit”
Alleged Shoving Match Between Counsel at a Deposition Leads to Sanctions and an Appeal to the Seventh Circuit
In Vega v. Chicago Bd. of Ed., No. 23-1183 (7th Cir. July 29, 2024), the Seventh Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part sanctions awarded by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent authority after an acrimonious deposition that allegedly led to a physical confrontation. “On July 13, 2017,Continue reading “Alleged Shoving Match Between Counsel at a Deposition Leads to Sanctions and an Appeal to the Seventh Circuit”
Sixth Circuit Finds Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) Certification Improper Where Wrongful Death Claim on Appeal Arose from Same Facts as Negligence and Other Causes of Action
In Sherrod v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 21-3428 (6th Cir. May 29, 2024), the Sixth Circuit dismisses an appeal of a wrongful death claim against Wal-Mart—presenting truly bizarre facts—where the panel finds that it should not have been certified for appeal under Rule 54(b) because it was too interrelated with unadjudicated causes of action forContinue reading “Sixth Circuit Finds Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) Certification Improper Where Wrongful Death Claim on Appeal Arose from Same Facts as Negligence and Other Causes of Action”
Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss Not Appealable Under Collateral-Order Doctrine Holds Tenth Circuit, Noting Split in Circuits
In Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic LLC, No. 23-1109 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 2024), the Tenth Circuit dismissed an attempted appeal of an order denying a “special motion to dismiss” under a state anti-SLAPP statue, holding that it did not fit within the confines of the collateral-order doctrine. Many jurisdictions have anti-SLAPP (Strategic LawsuitContinue reading “Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss Not Appealable Under Collateral-Order Doctrine Holds Tenth Circuit, Noting Split in Circuits”
“Law of the Case” Does Not Apply to Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Ruling by Motion Panel, Holds Split Eighth Circuit Panel
In Nordgren v. Hennepin Cnty., No. 22-1902 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2024), a 2-1 Eighth Circuit panel holds that a merits panel may reconsider the timeliness of an appeal even after a motion panel has already denied a motion to dismiss on the same ground, notwithstanding the “law of the case” doctrine. In a §Continue reading ““Law of the Case” Does Not Apply to Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Ruling by Motion Panel, Holds Split Eighth Circuit Panel”
Ninth Circuit Holds That Mootness is Discretionary, Rather Than Jurisdictional, Doctrine After the Court of Appeals Has Rendered Its Decision
In United States v. Perez-Garcia, No. 22-50314 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024), the Ninth Circuit holds that once it has already announced a decision, any arguments thereafter regarding mootness are discretionary rather than jurisdictional, subject to “equitable and pragmatic considerations.” During a criminal proceeding below, two defendants – as a condition of pretrial release –Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Holds That Mootness is Discretionary, Rather Than Jurisdictional, Doctrine After the Court of Appeals Has Rendered Its Decision”
Seventh Circuit Holds That Lawyer Has No Article III Standing to Appeal Court Order Revoking His Pro Hac Vice Admission Where Case Below Is Settled and Dismissed with Prejudice
In Bailey v. Worthington Cylinder Corp., No. 22-2111 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2024), the Seventh Circuit dismisses an out-of-state lawyer’s appeal of a lower order revoking his pro hac vice admission, holding that his reputational interest alone does not present a redressable interest to support Article III standing. Appellant counsel “is an attorney licensed toContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Holds That Lawyer Has No Article III Standing to Appeal Court Order Revoking His Pro Hac Vice Admission Where Case Below Is Settled and Dismissed with Prejudice”
After the Parties Settle All Claims, An Appeal From the Final Judgment Is Moot, Holds Eighth Circuit
In Folta v. Norfork Brewing Co., No. 22-3518 (8th Cir. Dec. 22, 2023), the Eighth Circuit dismisses an appeal from a case where all the claims settled, despite the defendant’s argument that it reserved the right to appeal in the settlement. “Norfork operates a small brewery in Arkansas. Folta was employed there from approximately MayContinue reading “After the Parties Settle All Claims, An Appeal From the Final Judgment Is Moot, Holds Eighth Circuit”
Split Ninth Circuit Panel Holds That Plaintiff Who Filed Original Securities Fraud Action Ceased to Be a Party When Court Appointed a Different Lead Plaintiff Under the PSLRA
In Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., No. 22-15660 (9th Cir. Oct. 11, 2023), a 2-1 panel holds that the original putative lead plaintiff in a securities fraud case was no longer a “party” with standing to appeal when a different lead plaintiff was appointed by the district court under the Private Securities Litigation Reform ActContinue reading “Split Ninth Circuit Panel Holds That Plaintiff Who Filed Original Securities Fraud Action Ceased to Be a Party When Court Appointed a Different Lead Plaintiff Under the PSLRA”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 