Ever had to explain to a client why a sweet win in the lower courts doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s time to dig in and eat?
In City of Martinsville, VA v. Express Scripts, a Fourth Circuit majority opinion used a palatable analogy to explain the appellate stay concept in layman’s terms. In that case, Plaintiff Martinsville sued the defendants in state court, but the defendants removed the case to federal district court. The district court then issued a remand order sending the case back to state court.
But before the remand order could be mailed to the state court, a requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the defendants quickly noticed an appeal to the Fourth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
Undeterred, the district court clerk put the remand order in the mail anyway. And that led the Fourth Circuit to effectively yell, “Get out of my kitchen!!!”
In a published opinion granting defendants’ motion for a stay, Judge Richardson explained the appellate stay as follows:
People often say that you shouldn’t have too many cooks in the kitchen. Wise words, particularly around Christmas. But culinary clutter can’t compare to the havoc of multiple courts taking actions in the same case, on the same issues, at the same time. That’s what happened here. Fortunately, there is a rule against it.
. . .
[By mailing the remand order after notice of appeal was given, the district court] tried to cook when the kitchen was ours. Therefore, we recognize—as we must—that the district court lacked the authority to mail the remand order because it was automatically stayed under Coinbase from doing so.
It’s not often that the Fourth Circuit issues a published order granting a stay–which is why I encourage you to read the entire opinion (as well as Judge Wynn’s dissent). Similarly, while North Carolina’s state appellate courts rarely issue published opinions on the topic, they frequently use writs of supersedeas to enforce the same § 1-294 stay concept: “Two courts at once is one court too many.”
Next time a victorious client asks, “Why can’t we eat yet,” consider explaining that appellate judges do not like cooking in a messy kitchen.
And yet, Judge Wynn’s dissent indicates that some appellate judges are not overly concerned by messy kitchen. My take is that the Fourth Circuit majority opinion and dissent appear to disagree on the default approach: Will a proper interlocutory appeal normally stay further trial court proceedings? The majority says yes, while the dissent says no.
Who has the better argument? What approach do North Carolina’s state appellate courts generally follow (hint, look at what § 1-294 says). What are the pro and cons of each approach? Share your thoughts at this LinkedIn post.
–Beth Scherer
h/t Matt Sawchak