The Seventh Circuit issued a decision today that has some significance for any of us interested in appeals from decisions of multi-district litigation transferee courts.
After the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers a group of related cases to a single district court for handling of pretrial matters, the transferee court often resolves everything that it can by summary judgment and then returns the unresolved cases to the JPML with a recommendation that those cases be returned to the original transferor courts for trial. If that recommendation is followed, the transferee court’s summary judgment rulings are appealed to the court of appeals for the circuit in which the transferee court is located, while the ultimate appeals in the unresolved cases, including review of the legal decisions that impelled the transferee court to deny summary judgment, will go to the courts of appeals for the circuits in which the transferor courts are located. The issue sometimes arises whether the transferee court should, rather, enter Rule 54(b) judgments in the cases in which it has denied summary judgment, so that appeals can be taken from those judgments, along with the judgments granting summary judgment, to a single court of appeals, that in the circuit of the transferee court.
Fifteen years ago, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit in In re Food Lion, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act “Effective Scheduling” Litig., 73 F.3d 528 (4th Cir. 1996), issued mandamus to the JPML to compel it not to transfer cases back to the transferor courts, to ensure that all appeals in the cases were resolved by the Fourth Circuit. The Seventh Circuit in FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. v. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, slip op., No. 11-2438 (Nov. 17, 2011), denied the defendant’s mandamus petition, holding essentially that the decision of which route to follow was an exercise of discretion by the JPML that should not be disturbed by mandamus.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.