During virtually every legal proceeding, in the back of the mind for every litigant and attorney, there looms a single word that is either loved or hated: appeal. Simply put, an appeal is a review of a lower court’s decision or decisions by appellate judges. However, not every decision warrants an appeal. Without delving into what is and is not appealable, all appealable decisions must be final. This long-standing principle became known as the “final judgment rule.” The final judgment rule means that the whole case, and every matter in controversy in the case, must generally be decided in a single appeal after a final order is entered in the trial.
However, this doctrine began to erode with the passage of the Interlocutory Appeals Act of 1958. This Act gave district courts the ability to certify a question of law to an appellate court if the appellate decision would serve to materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The appellate court could then accept to review the lower court’s question at its discretion even if the underlying case was pending. For matters concerning class action litigation, for example the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for an interlocutory appeal of adverse class certification orders.
This background is necessary to understand the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Microsoft v. Baker earlier this year. In this case, the plaintiffs were denied class certification, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently denied their request for an interlocutory appeal. Then, in an attempt to reach “finality,” the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice, but they reserved the right to reinstate their claims pending a review of the class certification by the appellate court. The Ninth Circuit approved this tactic, then reversed the district court’s denial of class certification.
The U.S. Supreme Court on further appeal overturned the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, stating that “the voluntary dismissal essayed by respondents does not qualify as a ‘final decision’ within the compass” of the finality doctrine. The Supreme Court based its opinion on the need to avoid ‘piecemeal litigation’ that would allow for multiple interlocutory reviews during the course of the litigation, such as was attempted here. The Supreme Court stated that allowing this tactic invited multiple interlocutory appeals as plaintiffs could continue to voluntarily dismiss their action at every adverse opinion, thereby circumventing the finality rule.
Lawsuits require planning at every stage of litigation, and the foresight to recognize the proper strategy to appeal takes experience and familiarity with both the rules that govern appellate review and the ever-changing legal world. At Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC, you will find legal professionals that fulfill these requirements for your litigation and legal needs.