Can a party “manufacture” appellate jurisdiction for an otherwise interlocutory appeal through the voluntary dismissal of remaining claims? That question was generally answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in 2017 in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017). There, the Court held that plaintiffs could not subvert the final-judgment requirement for appellate jurisdiction from 28 U.S.C.… Continue Reading
This week, the Court of Appeals reiterated the bounds of Rule 54(b) certification, highlighting that the language of the rule—which allows a party to immediately appeal from “a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties”—is only applicable when a judgment is, in fact, final.
Unlike in federal court, judges in North Carolina’s state courts often invite counsel for the prevailing party to draft a proposed order on the court’s ruling. Sometimes the judge will let the parties know of the judge’s rationale through a formal memorandum of ruling or an informal email. Does that document play any role in the appellate process?
Yes, according to the Court of Appeals.… Continue Reading
The federal corollary to the oft-blogged about “substantial right doctrine” in the North Carolina appellate courts is the “collateral order doctrine.” As is the case under North Carolina law, the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals is generally limited to final decisions of the district court. Therefore, a federal appellate court ordinarily cannot review interlocutory orders. But, as in North Carolina, there are exceptions. … Continue Reading
There is perhaps no truer aphorism of appellate jurisdiction than this: The substantial right doctrine is more easily stated than applied. In light of the Court of Appeals’ opinion last Tuesday in Beasley v. Beasley, litigants should consider how (or even whether) the substantial right test interacts with other jurisdictional statutes authorizing interlocutory appellate review.
Those familiar with North Carolina appellate jurisprudence are well aware that what constitutes “a substantial right” for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction over an interlocutory order is an issue that is routinely addressed, oftentimes at length, in North Carolina appellate opinions. So it was interesting to see the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s opinion in Krawiec v. Manly (released last Friday) in which the Court invoked substantial right jurisdiction over an interlocutory order from the North Carolina Business Court (under N.C.G.S.… Continue Reading
On Tuesday, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued its latest batch of opinions. An opinion that caught my eye represents a trend in the Court of Appeals of collapsing the substantial right jurisdictional analysis into the merit-based analysis of the underlying issue being argued on appeal. Merits-jurisdiction intermingling is an issue that my colleague, Pat Kane, previously raised in two blog posts from 2012.… Continue Reading
It’s a fairly common maneuver by plaintiffs’ attorneys: the trial court dismisses claims against some, but not all, defendants in a multi-defendant lawsuit, so the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the remaining defendants in order to pursue an immediate appeal of the dismissal order. The reason for this procedural wrangling is that while the lawsuit against the non-dismissed defendants is still pending, the dismissal order is interlocutory and, absent Rule 54(b) certification or an affected substantial right, that order is not immediately appealable. … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court stated in Dogwood v. White Oak, 362 N.C. 191, 657 S.E.2d 361 (2008), that noncompliance with nonjurisdictional rules normally should not lead to the dismissal of an appeal. The Dogwood Court also stated that the requirements of Appellate Rule 28(b), which govern the content of an appellant’s brief, are generally nonjurisdictional. Nonetheless, in Edwards v. Foley the Court of Appeals held that the appellants’ failure to include in their principal brief a complete statement of appellate jurisdiction (as required by Appellate Rule 28(b)(4)) was a jurisdictional violation that required dismissal of the appeal—at least for interlocutory appeals.… Continue Reading
Generally speaking, an appeal stops all proceedings at the trial court level until the appeal concludes. However, as we have previously blogged (here, here, here, and here), there are limited circumstances where a trial court may move forward with a case during the pendency of an appeal. In Plasman v. Decca Furniture (USA), Inc.,… Continue Reading