Appeals

Question 1

Final Judgement Rule §1291

(3 elements + TEST)

Answer 1

Final Judgement Rule - right to appeal final judgements

Purposes:

• Efficiency: one appeal; interlocutory rulings may become irrelevant (e.g., party objects to admission of evidence but ends up winning the case);
• saves time of appellate judges,
• speeds up the resolution of the case.

TEST:

• After making this order, does the district court have anything left to do on the merits of the case?
  
  • Does not include determination of attorney fees, motion to recover costs, etc..
  • Case is final when nothing remains to be done, except perhaps for the award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

File Notice of Appeal in the DISTRICT COURT within 30 days of entry of final judgement.

Question 2

Exceptions to the Final Judgement Rule

Answer 2

1. Injunctions §1292(a)(1)
2. Certification §1292(b)
3. Rule 54(b) - Judgement on multiple claims/parties
4. Mandamus
5. Collateral Order Doctrine - judge orders someone not wear religious item in court etc.
6. Rule 23(f) - Appeal from grant/denial of class cert.
   
   • doesn’t require approval by judge only acceptance by COA

Question 3

Injuctions under §1292(a)(1)

(3 elements)

Answer 3

• Orders granting, continuing, modifying, refusing to dissolve injunctions;
• TROs not included.
• Both preliminary and permanent injunctions are appealable.

Question 4

Certification under §1292(b)

Answer 4

1. District court must certify.
2. Must go to court of appeals within 10 days after certification.
3. Appellate courts must accept jurisdiction.

Requirements:

1. Controlling question of law; questions of fact don’t qualify
2. Substantial ground for disagreement: issue is complicated or courts are split. But even a question of first impression may not qualify if the answer is easy.
3. Resolution will materially advance litigation.

Focus is on efficiency: whether interlocutory review would ultimately result in a savings of time and expense for court and parties – e.g., avoid a trial or substantially curtail it.

Question 5

Rule 54(b)

(6 elements)

Judgement; Costs

Answer 5

• Entry of final judgment on fewer than all claims or on all claims against one party but fewer than all parties.
• Discretionary with court; think of it as a partial final judgment.
• Purpose: mitigate unfairness of delaying appeal that might otherwise occur but for liberal joinder of claims, parties.

Issue in the court of appeals: whether district court abused its discretion by entering Rule 54(b) order.

Requirements

1. Multiple claims or parties

• Easy to determine if there are multiple parties
• Harder issue: adjudication of one or more but fewer than all claims.
• If a case disposes of a particular legal issue but not a claim, Rule 54(b) doesn’t apply.
• Claim: refers to cause of action or legal right.

2. Final ruling on at least one claim or party
3. No just reason for delay: Do needs of parties outweigh the interest of having just one appeal at end of case?
   * Discretion of district court (including hardship of allowing immediate appeal)

Question 6

Mandamus

Answer 6

Extraordinary or drastic circumstances involving a usurpation of power or clear abuse of discretion

E.g., judge wrongfully refused to allow a jury trial; judge wrongfully refusef to recuse himself or herself.

Question 7

Collateral Order Doctrine

(3 elements)

Answer 7

Order must:

1. Conclusively determine the disputed question (not a tentative ruling or one likely to be reconsidered);
2. Resolve an important issue separate from the merits: needs to be collateral and must be important.

E.g., validity of a law requiring plaintiffs to post a bond as a condition to suit; a ruling against defendant on immunity

3. The issue must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. (For instance, immunity from suit is undermined if the party has to go through a trial before getting a ruling that he or she is immune.)

Question 8

Rule 23(f)

(3 elements)

Class Actions - Appeals

Answer 8

• Allows interlocutory review of a decision granting or denying class certification;
• discretionary on the part of the appellate court;
• no requirement that the district court certify the issue for appellate review.

Question 9

Liberty Mutual v. Wetzel

(3 elements)

Answer 9

Title VII suit arguing that employee insurance benefits and maternity leave regulations discriminated against women; on partial summary judgment court held policies violated Title VII; court did not order any of the relief requested – injunction, compensatory, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees; district court and court of appeals said appeal was proper under Rule 54(b)

Court held:

• Complaint advanced only a single legal theory; Rule 54(b) only applies to multiple claims
• Not 1292(a)(1): no denial of an injunction sought by the loser
• Not 1292(b): no application within 10 days; court of appeals thought appeal was under 1291, not 1292(b), so no indication that appellate court approved 1292(b)

Question 10

Appeal Standards of Review

(4 elements)

Answer 10

1. Pure questions of law – de novo
2. Question of fact by judge - affirm unless clearly erroneous (e.g., factual findings of a judge) – Rule 52(a)
3. Question of fact by jury - affirm unless no reasonable jury could have made that conclusion
4. Abuse of discretion (e.g., amendments to pleadings, most discovery issues) - affirm unless court abused its discretion

Question 11

Anderson v. Bessemer City

Answer 11

City was looking to hire a new recreation director; eight persons applied (only one woman, petitioner); five member committee – four were men

Title VII sex discrimination – 2 day trial; court ruled in favor of plaintiff; petitioner’s counsel submitted lengthy findings, including subsidiary findings;

trial court found petitioner was better qualified than the person selected; she had more breadth of experience; male committee members were biased against her because she was a woman; she was only one asked about whether her husband would approve of her applying; although Ms. Boone made a similar comment to person who got job, she said (and court agreed) it was a facetious remark; court found reasons offered by male committee members were pretextual; court awarded backpay and attorneys’ fees.

4th Cir reversed; found 3 out of 4 critical findings clearly erroneous

Supreme Court held:

• Finding of intentional discrimination is a finding of fact subject to clearly erroneous review.
• Definition of clearly erroneous: reviewing court left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
• Can’t reverse just because appellate court would have decided the case differently.
• Rationale for deference: duplication of effort contributes only negligibly to accuracy of fact determination; trial is the main event.
• Applies to tangible evidence; where credibility is at issue, even greater deference is warranted.

Here 4th Circuit reweighed the evidence.

Question 12

Rule 60(b)

(7 elements)

Motion for Relief from Judgement

Answer 12

Relief from Judgement

1. Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect
2. Newly discovered evidence that with reasonable diligence couldn’t have been discovered in time for a new trial motion
3. Fraud
4. Judgment is void
5. Judgment has been satisfied, released, discharged; is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable
6. any other reason justifying relief

Deadline: reasonable time, except 1, 2, 3 require motion within one year

Question 13

DeWeerth v. Baldinger

Answer 13

Dispute over Monet painting, previously owned by plaintiff; discovered missing after WW I, subsequently purchased by Baldinger from third party defendant Wildenstein.

DeWeerth discovered that Baldinger possessed the painting in 1982; filed diversity action to recover it.

After bench trial, court held that DeWeerth had superior right to painting; reversed by 2d Cir because DeWeerth had failed to show reasonable diligence in pursuing the painting (1987).

Rule 60(b) motion was filed by DeWeerth in 1991 under (6), relying on NY state case (NY Ct App 1991) holding that in cases involving stolen art NY limitations law did not require showing of reasonable diligence as long as owner made demand on possessor within a reasonable time after learning of possessor’s identity; SOL began to run only after demand upon possessor and possessor’s refusal to comply.

Second Circuit held:

(6): deals with extraordinary circumstances, extreme hardship

District court concluded that the intervening decision was an extraordinary circumstance; NY Ct App expressly stated that 2d Cir’s prior ruling was wrong (unanimously); DeWeerth would have prevailed under NY Ct App rule; district court said that interest in finality was outweighed by need to prevent an extreme injustice. But in the Second Circuit’s view, the district court was wrong. Erie does not authorize reopening a case that has been closed for several years to get benefit of newly announced state court decision.

Question 14

Interlocutory Review

(By statute: 2 elements)

(By rules: 3 elements)

Answer 14

Any order that is not a final judgement (Exception to final judgement rule): Grant for new trial etc.

By statute:

• §1292(a):
  
  • Allows interlocutory appeal of orders - injunction (grant, review, modify), etc.
• §1292(b): Can appeal if trial judge finds:
  
  • Issue is a controlling issue of law AND substantial ground for difference of opinion
  • AND court of appeals agrees to hear it.

Under FRCP:

• Rule 23(f):
  
  • Allows Court of Appeals discretion on an order granting/denying certification of CLASS ACTION.
• Rule 54(b):
  
  • Only comes up with MULTIPLE claims or MULTIPLE parties.
  • District Judge can expressly enter final judgement as to one or more of those parties or claims.
    
    • Judge must find there is no just reason for delay.
    • π sues Δ, Δ files counterclaim, Judge files ΣJ on counterclaim. If DC finds no reason for delay, counterclaim may be appealed.
• Collateral Order Rule.
  
  • Must show:
    
    • Important issue, separate from the merits.
    • Court order completely resolves that issue.
    • Issue is unreviewable if we have to wait for final judgement.
  • If these three are true, court of appeals has discretion to hear the appeal.