appellate jurisdiction
Arthur Andersen, LLP, et al. v. Carlisle, et al.
Issues
Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act entitles parties who are not signatories to an arbitration agreement to receive a stay of trial for arbitration, and whether Section 16 of the Act entitles non-signatories to an immediate appeal if the court refuses them a Section 3 stay.
Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") allows parties who have agreed to arbitrate to move for a stay of trial proceedings until they have had a chance to attempt arbitration. In addition, Section 16 of the FAA allows an immediate appeal of judgments denying stay under such circumstances. At issue in this case is whether these sections of the FAA extend to non-signing parties affected by an arbitration agreement. Petitioner Arthur Andersen advised Respondent Wayne Carlisle on a business transaction. As a result of this transaction, Carlisle eventually signed a contract, to which Andersen was a not party, that contained an arbitration agreement. After a dispute developed, Andersen sought a stay in the litigation proceedings in order to arbitrate with Carlisle, despite the fact that Andersen had not signed the arbitration agreement. After Andersen appealed the initial denial of its request for a stay, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Andersen's appeal because Sections 3 and 16 of the FAA only apply to signatories of arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court's decision in this case may clarify the scope of the FAA's application to non-signatories, including the availability of appellate review of denials of stays.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
(1) Whether Section 16(a)(l)(A) of the FAA provides appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying an application made under Section 3 to stay claims involving non-signatories to the arbitration agreement.
(2) Whether Section 3 of the FAA allows a district court to stay claims against non-signatories to an arbitration agreement when the non-signatories can otherwise enforce the arbitration agreement under principles of contract and agency law, including equitable estoppel.
Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution, outside litigation proceedings, in which parties submit a dispute to an impartial decision-maker for a binding decision. See American Arbitration Association, Arbitration & Mediation.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
certiorari
Overview
Certiorari simply defined is a “writ” by which a higher court (such as an appellate court) reviews some lower court’s decision (such as a district court).
Dalmazzi v. United States
Issues
Does the appointment of military officers serving on the Army or Air Force Courts of Criminal Appeals to the United States Court of Military Commission Review violate either 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2) or the Constitution, and does the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction to review the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3)?
In 2016, President Obama appointed four active-duty military officers already serving on the Army or Air Force Courts of Criminal Appeals (CCAs) to serve as judges on the United States Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR). This case consolidates petitions from eight servicemembers whose appeals were each ruled on in a CCA proceeding by one of the judges also appointed to the CMCR. Dalmazzi and her fellow petitioners, individuals whose sentences were affirmed by one of these judges, challenge the judges’ dual appointments as violations of 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2), which bars military officers from holding civil offices requiring appointment by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Dalmazzi also argues that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3). The United States counters that the CMRC judgeship is not a civil office and appointments there do not require advice and consent of the Senate. Additionally, the United States argues that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction in some of the consolidated cases. This case creates potential implications for the scope of the Appointments Clause and the Executive Branch’s power to select judges.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
- Whether this Court has jurisdiction in Nos. 16-961 and 16-1017 under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
- Whether CAAF erred in Nos. 16-961 and 16-1017 in holding that Petitioners’ claims were moot.
- Whether the four judges’ CMCR appointments violated § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii), thereby disqualifying them from continuing to serve on the CCAs.
- Whether the Appointments Clause prohibits a judge from simultaneously serving on both the CMCR and the CCAs.
Petitioner Nicole Dalmazzi was a Second Lieutenant in the United States Air Force. See United States v. Dalmazzi, ACM No. 38808, 2016 WL 3193181, at *1 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 12, 2016). In January 2014, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (“AFOSI”) began investigating commissioned officers for drug offenses.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Harry Graver, Military Commissions Loom Large at Supreme Court, Lawfare (Oct. 3, 2017).
Hall v. Hall
Issues
In a consolidated case, does the entry of a final judgment in only one case trigger the “appeal-clock” for that entire case?
The Court will decide when a party may take an immediate appeal in a single district consolidated case under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the statute addressing appellate jurisdiction of all final decisions made by the district courts of the United States. Elsa Hall argues that § 1291 allows an appeal from a final judgment in a consolidated case even if the judgment does not resolve all claims. On the other hand, Samuel Hall argues that only a judgment resolving all consolidated claims may be appealed under § 1291. This issue arises in every consolidated case in which a district court enters judgment that leaves some claims in the consolidated case unresolved. Accordingly, the case will impact how plaintiffs bring claims and the appeals process in federal courts.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the clarity Gelboim v. Bank of America gave to multidistrict cases should be extended to single district consolidated cases, so that the entry of a final judgment in only one case triggers the appeal-clock for that case.
Ethlyn Hall and her son, Samuel, had a falling out due to a disagreement over his free legal work for her. Hall v. Hall, 679 F. App’x 142, 143 (3d Cir. 2017). As a result, Ethlyn stopped speaking to her son. Id. Her health began to deteriorate, and she moved to Florida with her daughter, Elsa.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Josh Jacobson, Is a Separate Judgment in a Consolidated Action Appealable?, American Bar Association (Oct. 11, 2017).
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services Of Chicago
Issues
Is Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) jurisdictional in nature or is it instead a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule?
The issue in this case involves whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is a jurisdictional rule or a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. Hamer argues that the Rule is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule because it has no statutory basis, while Neighborhood Housing Services argues that the Rule is a jurisdictional rule because it prescribes the types of cases over which a court has adjudicatory authority and has a statutory basis. The case is significant from a legal perspective because it will determine whether a violation of Rule 4(a)(5)(C) strips a court of appeals of its jurisdiction to hear a case on the merits, or whether the court may still consider the case on the merits based on equitable considerations or if a party waived or forfeited its right to seek dismissal under the Rule. From a policy perspective, this case is significant because its outcome will affect the judicial system’s interest in finality and because a decision affirming the Seventh Circuit would caution against relying on the legal accuracy of orders from district court judges regarding appeals.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) can deprive a court of appeals of jurisdiction over an appeal that is statutorily timely, or whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is instead a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule because it is not derived from a statute, and therefore subject to forfeiture or waiver by an appellee, or subject to equitable considerations such as the unique-circumstances doctrine.
Petitioner Charmaine Hamer (“Hamer”) worked as an Intake Specialist for the Respondents, Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago and Fannie Mae’s Mortgage Help Center (“Housing Services”), for several years. Brief for Respondents, Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago and Fannie Mae at 3. Hamer applied for promotions during her time there but never received any.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Vin Gurrieri, Supreme Court to Weigh 30-Day Deadline For Fed. Appeals, Law 360 (Feb. 27, 2017).
- Eric Miller, When are Appellate Time Limits Jurisdictional?, Law 360 (Aug. 16, 2017).
Ortiz v. Jordan
Issues
Can an appellate court review a denial of summary judgment when the party failed to appeal the denial before trial or failed to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law after the jury verdict?
After being assaulted while serving time in a federal prison, Michelle Ortiz sued two prison guards for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on a defense of qualified immunity, and the case went to trial. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Ortiz, but the Sixth Circuit reversed on the basis of qualified immunity. Ortiz argues that the Sixth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal based on qualified immunity because the issue, originally raised on summary judgment, was not preserved for appeal after final judgment was entered at trial. Jordan argues that by filing a motion for summary judgment, the issue was preserved. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will give guidance to litigants on how to preserve for appeal an issue that was the subject of a denied summary judgment motion.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
May a party appeal an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits if the party chose not to appeal the order before trial?
Petitioner Michelle Ortiz (“Ortiz”) is a former prisoner of the Ohio Reformatory for Women. See Ortiz v. Jordan, 316 Fed. Appx. 449, 450 (6th Cir.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
· Wex: Appellate Procedure
· Findlaw: What is Summary Judgment?
per curiam
Per Curiam is a judicial opinion by a court with multiple judges without citing any single judge as the author.