### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40685

M A R IA S A N T O S L O P E Z D O M IN G U E Z , in d iv id u a llya n d A .N .F . to K .L ., M
. L
. , I. L
. an d E state o f O m a r G u aj a rd o A n d ra d e; S A N D R AP A T R IC IA P A C H E O R O S A D O , i n di vi du al l y an d as representat i ve of t h e E st ate of Leo nar do M
. H e r nand e z Po z o ; TAY D E M
. PO ZO RO BL E, pa r e nto f Le o nar do M
. H ern a n d ez P oz o; J U L IS S AB O V IO C H A G O YA , i n d i vid u a l l y a n d A

. N
. F
. to D
. B
. , J. B
. an d M
. B
. on beh al f of t h e E st ate of

M i gu elA n gelSoli s R odri gu ez; CARL OS BL AS CORT AZ AR; S ERGI O ROS ADO CORT ES ; EUDOCI A A. J ACOM E GOM EZ ; AL DO ANTONI O LOP EZ L ORENZO; J ORGE GUZM AN M AR T I NEZ ; J ES US I
. S UAR EZ MAT I AS ; J UAN ANT ONI O P AL AF OX NAVARET TE ; P AS TOR GARCI A OCANA; OS CAR ROM ERO ORT EGA; S ERGI O S OLI S P ONCE; J OSE P EDRO COBO QUI ROZ ; F ERNANDO A. CE RV ER A RA M I RE Z ; J OR GE A

. J I M ENE Z R ANG EL ; MART I N Z UNI GA S AL AZ AR ; GA BR I EL GO NZ AL EZ T OR A; T EO DOS I O R UED A DE L EO N; M IG U E L H E R N A N D E Z C H A N , paren tof L eon ardo M
. H erna n dez P ozo, d e c e a s e d ; ANTONI O M ONTERO HERNANDEZ; L EONEL F ERNANDEZ RI VE RA ; H ER M I LLO J I M EN EZ C EP ED A; ALL PLA I N TI FFS, P l a i n ti ffs-A p p ell a n t s v. GULF COAS T M ARI NE & AS S OCI AT ES , I NC. ; GL EN CART ER; PE TR OLEOS M EXI CANOS; HALL I BURTON COM PA NY; S CHLUM BERGER TE CHN OLOGY C ORPORA TI ON; M AT THEW S

- DANI EL C O M P A N Y , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ee s

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 28, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

2 F O R T U N A T O P
. B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: I n t hi s c as e , w e a r e a s ke d t o revi ew the d i s m i s s alo f a n a c t i o n s e e ki ng redress f

or i nj u ri es s u f

fered i n a dead l y m a riti m e acci den tof f t h e coastof M exi c o. H ow eve r , at t hi s t i m e, w e f or ego a r ul i ng on t he m er i t s of t he di sm i ss al
o f t hi s c as e f

o rf o r um no n c o nve ni e ns . Af t e rp l ai n t i f

fs f i l e d t hi s a ppe al , t he di st ri ctj u dg e w h o presi ded over t h i s case recused h i m sel f, cal l i n g i n t o qu est i on t he c o nt i nue d v al i di t y o f hi s di s m i s s al
. G i ve n t he i nc o m pl e t e i nf o r m at i o n i n t he
recor d regarding the ci rcum st an ces of the j u dg e’ s r ecusal , w e rem an d thi s c ase t o t he di st r i c tcour tforthe l i m i t ed pur pos e o f addr es si ng w het hert he di sm i ss al of t h i s c ase shou l d be set asi de. I. O n O ct ober 23, 200 7, an u n u su a ll y st rong stor m bl ew acros s t h e G u l f of Cam pe c he , w he r e t he m o b i l e dr i l l i ng r i g U SU M AC I N TA w as po s i t i o ne d o ve rt he oi l pro duct i on pl at f

or m KA B

- 101, appro xi m at el y t en m i l es nor t h of t he M exi c an coast
. A s hu rri can e f orce w i n ds batt ered t h e v essel s, t h e U S U M A C IN T Aal l i ded
w i t h t h e KA B

- 101 , da m aging t h e pl atf orm an d cau si n g oi lan d ga s t o l eak f rom o ne o f i t s w e l l s . The w o r ke r s onb o ar d on t he KAB

- 10 1 w e r e una bl e t o s t o p t he l eak an d h ad t o e v a cua t e t h e pl atf orm . Th ey board ed tw o l i feboats c al l ed
m anda r i nas , b o t h o f

wh i c h e v e n t u a l l yc a p s i z e d i n t h e r o u g h w a t e r s . T we n t y - t wo w ork ers d row n ed , alon g w i th tw o res cu ers ca l l ed to t h e a cciden t. The pl ai nt i f

fs i n t hi s c as e ar e re l at i ve s of t he w o r ke r s w ho pe r i s he d i n t he acci den t , representat i ves of t h e ir e sta tes, an d su rvi vors of t h e acci den t
. E ach pl ai n t i f f i s a r esi den tof

M exi co, an d a llof

t h e i n di vi du al s w h ose deaths or inj u r i e s a r e th e s u b je c t o f th is la w s u it w o r k e d fo rM e x ic o ’ s s ta te -o w n e d o il
co m p a n yP e tró leo s M e x ica n o s (“P e m e x ”) or P erf oradora C e n tra l ( “P e rfo ra d o ra ”),
a M e xi c an com pa n y t h ata s s i s t s Pe m e x i n o i le xp l o r at i o n. At t he t i m e o f t he
ac c i de nt , Pe m e x o w ne d t he KAB

- 10 1 plat fo r m a nd was l e as i ng t he U SU M A C I N TA r i g f r om Per f

or ador a. Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

Plaintiff

s initiallyf

il ed s uit again stP em ex , b ut late r volu ntarilydis mi sse d th es e 1 clai ms. Since theyfil ed this appeal , plaintiffs have also dismissed their cl aims again st three other defendants: B attelle Memorial I nstitute, Vetco Gray, Inc., an d B aker Hugh es, I nc. 3 In 2 0 0 8 , a y e a ra fte rth e a c c id e n t , p l a i n t i ffs in itia te d th e p r e s e n t s u it in fe de r aldi s t r i c tc o ur ti n Luf ki n, Te xa s , a s s e r t i ng ne gl i ge nc e , g r o s s ne gl i ge nc e, a n d p r o d u c ts lia b ility cla im s . N e ith e rP e m e x n o r P e r fo r a d o r a a r e d e fe n d a n ts in th is s u it. In s te a d , p la in tiffs h a v e f ile d s u it a g a in s t fo u rT e x a s co m p a n ie s , G u lf 1 C oas tM ar i ne & A ss oc i at ed, I nc. ( “ G ul f C oa st” ) , Schl um ber gerTec hnol ogy C or por at i on, H a l l ib ur t o n Ene r g ySe r v i c e s , I nc . , and M at t hew s- D ani elC om pany. T h ey h ave als o f

i l ed s u i t aga i n st G l en C art er, an al l eged em pl oyee of G u l f C oast
an d U
. S

. ci t i zen resi den ti n L o u isian a. Plai n t i f fs al l ege t h at defen da n t s are c ol l ec t i vel y r es ponsibl e f ort he ac c i dentt hat oc c urr ed o n O c t obe r23, 2007. A f t er l i m i t ed d i scovery, on M ay 29 , 200 9 t h e di st ri ct court i ssued an order di sm i ssi n g t h i s c ase f or f orum non conven i en s, conti n gen ton severalcondit i on s. S p ecif i ca l l y, t h e ord er p rov i d ed tha t: IT IS T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D tha t D efen d a n ts’M oti on s to Di s m i s s f

o rFo r um Non Co nv e ni e ns . . . s ha l lb e CON DI TI ON ALLY G RA N TE D s ubj e c tt o a r e t ur n j ur i s di c t i o n c l ause u n de rt he f ol l ow i n g cond i t i on s: 1 ) D efen d a n ts’ag ree m en t t o a p p ea r an d su b m i t t h em selve s to t he j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e M e x i c a n c o u r t s , wa i v i n ga ny j u ri sdi ct i on aldefen ses t h ey m i gh tnorm al l y possess; 2) D efen da n t s’w ai ver of an y st atute of

l i m i t ati on s or l a c h e s - r e l a t e d d e fe n s e s t h a tt h e yd i d n o tp o s s e s s a tt h e t i me t he Pl ai nt i f

fs o r i gi nal l y f

i l e d i n t hi s c o ur t ; a nd 3) D e fe nda nt s ’a gr e e m e nt to s ubm i tt o di s c o ve r y i n t he M e xi c an f

o r um i n ac c o r da nc e w i t h t he pr o c e dur alr ul e s o f t he M ex i ca n cou rt. T h e d is m is s a l o f th is ca s e fr o m th is co u r t’s d o c k e t s h a ll becom e ef

fect i ve on ce t h e D efen da n t s hav e t en dered a w ri t t en st a tem en tassenti n g t o be bou n d by t h e f oregoi n g cond i t i on s. Sho ul d t he D e fe nda nt s fai lt o do so by J u ne 2 6, 2 00 9, t he i rf o r um n o n co n v e n ie n s m o tio n s w i ll b e co n s id e r e d w a iv e d , a n d th is ca s e w ill p r o c e e d to tr ia l in th is co u r t. Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

4 S h ou l d the courts of M exi co r ef

u se t o acceptju risd ic t i on f or rea son s oth er th a n P l a i n ti ffs ’ r efu sa lto pu rsu e a n action or to com p l y w i th th e pro ced u ra l req u i rem en ts of M ex i ca n cou rts , th is court m ay reassertj u ri sdi ct i on u pon ti m el y n ot i f i cat i on of

t h e sam e. O n June 26, 2009, def endant s m ett he di st r i c tcour t ’ s deadl i ne f orf i l i ng a s t a t e me n ta g r e e i n gt o r e t u r n j u r i s d i c t i o n , s u b mi t t i n ga s t i p u l a t i o n w i t h t e r ms ver y s i m i l art o t hos e m andat ed byJudge C l ar k. Three days l at er , on Jun e 2 9, pl ai n t iffs f

i l ed a n ot i ce app eal i n g t h e court ’ s M ay 29 order, as pl ai n t i f fs w ere c o nc e r ne d t hatt he o r de r c o ul d be c o ns t r ue d as f i nala nd t he t hi r t y- da y de ad l i ne fo ra p p e a l h a d a r r i v e d
. S ee Fed
. R. App. P. 4 ( a) ( 1) (A) ( “ I n a c i vi lc as e , . . . t he
n ot i ce of

app eal
. . . m u stbe f i l ed .
. . w i t h i n 30 d ays aft er t h e j u dg m en tor order ap pea l ed f

rom i s enter ed. ” ) . A d a y later, pl ai n t i f fs obj ect ed to defenda n t s’ st i pu l ati on , as defen da n ts h ad onl y agreed t o subm i tt o j u ri sdi ct i on i n M exi co C i t y. Sh ort l y t h ereaf t er, defen da n t s s u bm i t t ed a revi sed st i pu l ati on on Ju n e 6
an d p l ai n t i f

fs w i t h dr e w th e ir obj ect i on , prom pti n g t h e courtt o enter an order f or m al l y di sm i ss i ng t hi s c as e o n Jul y 7. Aw eek l ater , on Ju l y 1 3 , 200 9, Ju dg e C l ark con ven ed a tel econfer en ce w i t h co unself

or al l par t i es and i nf or m ed t hem t hat he had j ustdi sc ove r ed t hat h e ow n ed stock i n the pa ren t com p a n y of a de fen d a n t i n this case
. A s a re su l t, h e a n n ou n ced tha t he w a s recu sing h i m self, ex p l a i n i n g th a t: T h i s i s s o m e t hi ng t hatI pr o ba bl y s ho ul d ha ve f i gur e d o utb e f

o r e, nam e l y, a to url as the ar i ng w he n we went throu gh t he q ue s t i o ns ab o utSc hl um be r ge r . Buta l lo f a s udd e n— i n t he m i ddl e o f t he ni ght a c o upl e o f

da ys a go, I a l lo f

a s udd e n— i ts udd e nl y c l i c ke d, a nd I st ar t ed l oo ki ng. . . . [ R ] ec ent l y, due t o t he dea t h of m y m ot her , I had ac qui r e d s o m e Sc hl um be r ge r Li m i t e d s t o c k, no t a gr e at de al
. B ut u n d er th e C od e of Ju d i ci a lE th i cs, j u st on e sh a re is en ou gh to di s qua l i f

y m e f r o m a ny c as e i nvo l vi ng Sc hl um be r ge rLi m i t e d. And unde rt he r ul i ngs de al i ng w i t h Fe de ral j u di c i alc o nduc ta nd t he C om m i t t e e o n Co d e s o f Co nd uc t , i ti s s o m e t hi ngt ha tc a nn o tbe w ai ved by the pa rt i es becau se i t i s j u stt h e app earan ce. So, I ’ m not even goi n g t o ask abou t t h at. A n d t h en t h ere i s t h e factt h at s i n ce S chl u m berger T ech i s ow n ed by an d i t s paren ti s Sch l u m berger Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

Plaintiffs also challe nge the m er its of th e di strict court’s forum non conveni ens 2 dis mi ss al, but forthe reas onsexplaine d belo w, we donot reviewthisiss ue tod ay. 5 Lim i ted , t hen Schl um ber gerLi m i t ed has an i nt er es ti n w hat h ap pen s t o Sch l u m berger T ech. I w i sh I had t h ou gh tof t h i s bef ore I i ss ued m y f

i r stopi ni on, w hi c h evi dent l y i s now on appe alout of an a b u n d a n c e o f

c a u t i o n , I u n d e r s t a n d , b yp l a i n t i f fs b e c a u s e — a nd I agr ee i t ’ s so m et i m es ve r y di f fi c ul tt o t el lex ac t l y w hen t he f i nal o r d e rco m e s a n d w h e n y o u h a v e to a p p e a l
. B u t I th in k th e o n ly th in gI c a n d o is , in e ffe c t, w ith d r a w th is la s t o r d e r . A n d I s till— it i s w i t hi n t e n da ys . I t hi nk I c an do t hat
. I t ’ s w hatI c o ns i de r e d t he fin a l o r d e rto b e ; a lth o u g h , th e f i r s t o n e w h e r e I c o n d itio n a lly g ra n te d th e tra n sfe r m a yh a v e b e e n th e fin a l o n e — a n d th e n n o tify t h e ci rcui tcourtas t o w h at I ’ ve d on e so t h ey can deci de w h at t h ey w a n t t o d o w ith it. I m e a n , I d o n ’ t k n o w th a t a n o th e rju d g e w o u ld c o m e u p w ith a d iffe r e n t d e c is io n ; b u t I fe e l it’s ju s t s im p ly i nap pr o pr i at e t o l e t t hi s s t and o r ho pe t hat no bo dy no t i c e s l at e ro n. T h at j u sti sn’ t

— I m ean , t h at’ s not h ow w e do bu si n ess. A c c o r d i n g ly , la te rth a t d a y , J u d g e C la r k e n te r e d s e p a r a te o r d e r s v a c a tin gh is June 7 o r de r di s m i s s i ng t hi s c as e and r e c us i ng hi m s e l f

. The c hi e f j udg e o f t he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f

Te xa s t he n r e as s i gne d t hi s c as e t o J udg e T. J o hn W ar d.

II. B e fo r e a d d r e s s in gth e e ffe c t o f J u d g e C la r k ’ s r e c u s a l o n t h e m e r its o f th is ap pea l , w e m u st f

i rst assure ou rselves of our j u ri sdi ct i on . W e m ay on l y exerci se j u ri sdi ct i on over ap pea l s f rom “ f i n al deci si on s. ” 28 U
. S

. C

. § 1291 ( 200 6)

. O n e of t he o ddi t i es pr oduc ed byt he unu su a l p roceduralpos t ure of t hi s c as e i s t hat pl ai n t i f fs ask us to di sm i ss thei r ow n a pp ealforlack of j u ri sdi ct i on , so t h at t h ey 2
m ay r et urn t o t he di st r i ct co u rt f orJudge W ar d t o de t er m i ne w het herJudge C l ark’ s di sm i ssali s s t i l lval i d. Sp eci f i call y, pl ai n t i f

fs c on t en d that w e l ack j uri sdi c t i on be c ause (i) t hey appe al ed f r om Judge C l ar k’ s M ay 29 or der , (i i) t hat
or derw as notf

i nal , and (i i i) as an i nt er l oc ut or y o r der , i tm er ged w i t h t he f i nal di sm i ssalorder i ssued on Ju l y 7, w h i ch w as l atervacate d by Ju dg e C l ark on J u ly1 3
. H o w e v e r , p la in tiffs a r e m is ta k e n ; w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth is a p p e a l. Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

Defen dant s point to seve ral cases that th ey clai m indicate that the May29ord er wa s 3 final and immediatelyapp eal abl e. Ina numb er of ca ses, this C ourth as h eld that co ndition al forum nonconve nie ns d is m is s al s arefin al, despite the fact that “th e orders may literally app ear to h ave mo re typically n onfin al ch aract eris tics . . . [b ]e cau sethey are condition al. ” Koke v. Ph illips P

et roleu m C

o. , 7 3 0 F .2 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 (5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 4), overru led on ot her gro unds by Trivellon i-Lorenzi v. PanAm. Wo rld Airways, I nc. (Inre Air Crash Dis aster near Ne w Orleans) , 8 2 1 F .2d 1 147, 116 3n .2 5( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 7) (e nb a nc) ; see also N ewball v. Offshore Logistics I

nt ’l , 803 F.2 d 821 , 826 (5th Cir. 198 6). Forex ample, in Koke , this C ourth eld that a di smissal order was fin al, even thou ghit“was condition ed o n thre e re qui sites: (1 ) that all defen dant s con sent to j uri sdictio n in a single appropriateforeign forum; (2) thatall defendants waive any

defe nse regardingth e statuteof limit atio ns; and (3) that all defendants consent to satisfying

any ju dgment re ndere d b y s uchcourt.” 730F .2d at 2 14. These cases seem tobe ani mated at lea st inpart b y a c oncern that interpretin g condition al forum nonconve nie ns dismissals to b e nonfinalwoul d beu nfair toplaintiffs—if such dismissals w er e no tfin al, pl aintiff s w ouldnotb e ab let o app eal a n or de r dire ctin g th em tolitigateab ro a d without firs t commencing

litigatio n abroad. We note that this case is distin guishablefrom cases like Koke—Judge C lark’s dismissal was not sol elyco nd it ion ed o n defen dant s sub mittin g to j uri sdictio n abroad, butal so on defen dant s filing

a stipul atio n in his court b y Jun e 2 6, l ess th an a m onthaft er e ntryof his May29ord er. Inth ese circu mstance s, Ju dge Cl ark’s May29ord er mi ght re ason ably be read a s b ein gnonfin al wh ene nte re d, b ut wedo n otr eachthisi ssu e to day . 6 Eve n i f J udg e Cl ar k’ s di s m i s s aldi d no tb e c o m e f i nalunt i lJ ul y 7, pl ai nt i f fs ’J une 2 9 n o tic e o f a p p e a l re la te s fo r w a r d to t h e d a te w h e n t h e d is m is s a l b e c a m e fin a l. At t hatpoi nt , j ur i s di c t i o n ve s t e d i n t hi s C o ur t , m e ani ng t hatJ udg e Cl ar k’ s J une 13 v ac at uro f

hi s J une 7 f

i nalo r de ri s v o i d. T h is a p p e a l is f

r o m J u d g e C la r k ’ s M a y2 9 o r d e r , a n d t h e p a r tie s p r im a r ily f o c us t he i ra r gum e nt s o n whet he rt he M ay2 9 o r de rw as f i nalw he n e nt e r e d,
s ugg e s t i ng t hati f

i tw e r e no tf

i nalw h en en t e r e d, w e w o ul d l ac k j ur i s di c t i o n. 3 T h i s i s i n corr ect; e v en i f pl ai n t i f

fs’Ju n e 29 n ot i ce of app ealw ere f

i l ed p r e ma t u r e l y , b e f

o r e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a lo f t h i s c a s e b e c a me f

i na l , we coul d st i l lha ve j u ri sdi ct i on , as prem ature noti ces of app ealm ay som et i m es r e la te fo r w a r d to t h e d a te w h e n d is m is s a l o f a c a s e b e c o m e s f in a l. F e d e r a l R u le
o f Appe l l at e Pr o c e dur e 4 ( a) ( 2) e s t ab l i s he s t hat“ [ a] not i c e of appe alf

i l e d a f t e rt he court an n ou n ces a deci si on or order— bu tbef ore th e e n try of

t h e j u dg m en tor ord er— i s trea ted as fi l ed on the da te of an d after the en try.” Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

7 T h e l ead i n g case i n t erpret i n g t h i s r u l e i s Fi r s Ti e rMortgage Co. v. Invest ors Mortgage In su ra n ce C o. , 4 98 U
. S. 2 69 ( 19 91 )

. I n Fi rsTie r , a di st ri ct court an n ou n ced t h at i t w as gran t i n g a defenda n t ’ s m ot i on f o r s u m m ary j udg m e nt , bu t a ske d t he de fe nda ntt o s ubm i tpr o po s e d f i ndi ngs o f

fac ta nd
c o n c lu s io n s o f la w . T h e c o u r t a ls o s ta te d th a t it w o u ld a llo w th e p la in tiff to file
o b je c t i o n s to th e p r o p o s e d fin d in g s . Id
. at 270

- 71. H ow ever, bef ore t h e court
e n te r e d th e fin a l ju d g m e n t, t h e p la in tiff a p p e a le d
. Id
. a t2 7 2
. T h e S u p r e me Cour tc o nc l ude d t hata l t ho ugh t he j udg e “ di d no te xp l i c i t l y e xc l ude t he po s s ibi l i t y t hathe m i ghtc hange h i s m i nd” b e f o r e e nt e r i ng a f

i nalo r de r , t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s not i c e o f

appealc ou l d “re l a t e f or w ar d t o j udgm entand s er ve as an effective n oti ce of ap p ea lf rom the f

i n a lj u d gm en t. ” Id
. at 273 , 275
. T h e C ou rt h eld th a t “ R u l e 4 (a)( 2 ) p erm i ts a n o tice of ap p ea lf rom a n on fi n a lde ci sion to operate as a n ot i ce of app ealf

rom t h e f

i n alj u dg m en tonl y w h en a di st ri ctcourt
anno unc e s a de c i s i o n t hatw o ul d b e a ppe al ab l e i f im m edi at e l y f

o l l o w e d b y t he
en try of j u d gm en t. ” Id
. at276. In t h i s c ase, Ju dg e C l ark str u ct u red his M ay 29 order s u ch that once de fe ndants f

i l e d t he i rs t i pul at i o n, he di d no tne e d t o t ak e a ny f ur t he ra c t i o n, o t he rt han s i m pl y e nt e r i ng a s ho r t o r de r f o r m al l y di s m i s s i ng t he c as e . I nde e d,
o n c e d e fe n d a n ts file d a s a tis fa c to r ys tip u la tio n a n d p la in tiffs w ith d r e w th e ir ob j ection , tha t i s w h a t he did
. T h u s, on M a y 2 9 , Ju d g e C la r k a n n ou n ced “a deci si on t h at w ou l d be a p p e a l able i f i m m edi atel y f

ol l ow ed by t h e entry of j u d gm en t, ” Fi rsTie r , 498 U
. S. at276, an d t her ef or e pl ai nt i f

fs’not i c e o f

appeal fr o m th e M a y2 9 o r d e rca n re la te fo r w a r d to th e d a te it b e c a m e fin a l. In si m i l ar ci rcum st an ces, other ci rcui tcou rt s h ave als o f ou n d that noti ces of appealc an r el at e f

or w ar d. Th e Seco nd and Sevent h C i r c ui t s have hel d t hat
w hen “ t he di st r i c t co u rt sta te s t hat i f a c er t ai n eve nt doe s nothappen by a pa r t i c ul arda t e t he c o ur t ’ s o r de rw i l lb e c o m e a f i nalj u dg m e nt , a nd t he e ve nt d o e s not h ap pen , a noti ce of app ealf

i l ed aft er t h e court ’ s s t atem en tbu tbef ore Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

See Slayton v. Am. E

xpress Co. , 460F .3d 2 15, 224(2d Cir. 2 006) (“A dismissal with 4 leaveto amen d is a non-finalord er and not appealab le. . .
. However , anapp ell antcan render such a n on -f

in al or de r ‘f

in al’an d app ealab leb ydis cl aim in ganyinte nt toa me n d. ”) ; Oti s v. City of Chi ca go , 2 9F .3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 8( 7 thC ir
. 1 9 9 4) (e nb a nc) (app rovin go f “anapp eal fr oma co n dition al or de r of

dis mi ssal aft erth e ti met o sati sf yth e co n ditionh a s expire d”). 8 th e s p e c ifie d d a te is co v e r e d b yR u le 4 (a )(2 ).” 1 6 AC h a r le s A lle n W r ig h t e t a l., F ederalP ract i ce an dP roce d u re § 3 9 5 0 .5 (4 th e d . 2 0 0 8 ). T h is c a s e is e ffe c tiv e ly 4 t he s am e , e xc e ptt hat f i nal i t y w as no t t r i gg e r e d by t he fai l ur e o f a pa r t y t o t ak e a c e r t ai n a c t i o n, b utr at he rb y de fe nda nt s ’s ubm i s s i o n of t he i rst i pul at i o n t o t he
c o ur t
. Des pi t e t hi s di s t i nc t i o n, s i nc e J udg e Cl ar k d i d no tne e d t o t ak e a ny fu r th e ra c tio n a fte rth e s a tis fa c t io n o f h is co n d itio n p r e c e d e n t t o d is m is s a l, p la in tiffs ’n o tic e o f a p p e a l ca n re la te fo r w a r d
. T h u s , ju r is d ic tio n v e s te d in th is C o u r t a t t h e la te s t o n J u ly7 , w h e n J u d g e C la r k e n te r e d a n o r d e rfo r m a lly di sm i ssi n g t h i s c ase. F i n al l y, Ju dg e C l ark’ s July 13 order vacat i n g h is di sm i ssalof t h i s c ase d o e s n o t d is tu r b o u rju r is d ic tio n , a s w e h a d a lr e a d ya c q u ir e d ju r is d ic tio n b yJ u ly 7 at t h e l atest
. W e h ave previ ou sl y h el d that w h en a noti ce of app ealt ran sf

ers ju r is d ic tio n to th is C o u r t, d is tr ic t c o u r ts lo s e t h e a b ility to v a c a te o ra m e n d th e ir
o r d e r s th a t h a v e b e e n a p p e a le d
. S ee , e.g ., Win ch es terv. U.S

. A ttor n ey forS

. D ist. of T ex. , 6 8 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 4 8 -4 9 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); Offsh o re L og istics S er v s., In c. v. Mu t. Mari n e Of

f i ce, I n c. , 639 F
. 2d 116 8, 117 0 ( 5th C i r. 198 1)

. Th eref ore, pl ai n t i f

fs’ contenti on t h at the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s Ju l y 13 vacatur order d epri ves this C ou rtof ap pel l ate j u ri sdi ct i on i s i n corr ect
. O f course, t h i s i s n ot t o say t h at t h e di st ri ct
c o ur twas s t r i p p e d o f a l lj ur i s d i c t i o n o nc e p l a i nt i f fs ’n o t i c e o f

a p p e a lb ec am e ef fect i ve. “ T h e di st ri ctcourtm ai n t ai n s j u ri sdi ct i on as t o m att ers n oti n vol ved i n t h e app eal , such a s t h e m eri t s of an action w h en app ealf rom a prel i m i n ary inju n c tio n is ta k e n , o rin a id o f th e a p p e a l, a s b y m a k i n gcle r ic a l co r r e c tio n s .” F arm h an d , I

n c. v. A n elE ng’

g Ind u s. , I

n c. , 6 9 3 F .2d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 2 ). C ons equent l y, i tw as s t i l lappr opr i at e f orJudge C l ar k t o r ec use hi m se l f, i nso far Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

9 a s h e re ta in e d ce r ta in re s id u a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth is c a s e . A ls o , h is r e c u s a l co u ld be v i e w e d a s b e i ng i n a i d o f t hi s a ppe al , a s i tb r i ngs t o o ura t t e nt i o n s e r i o us q u e s tio n s co n c e r n in gth e p r o p r ie ty o f th e d is m is s a l th a t is n o w o n a p p e a l. III. H avi ng c onf

i r m ed o ur j uri sdi c ti on , w e now addr es s t he e f fec tof Judge C l ark’ s ow n ershi p of Sch l u m berger L i m i t ed s t ock on t h i s app eal
. Plai n t i f fs ask
u s to gra n t t h em l ea ve to f i l e a m oti on w i th the distri ct cou rt pu rsu a n t t o F ederalR u l e of

C i vi lP rocedure 60(b) , w h i ch h as been used previ ou sl y as a m ean s f

or vacat i n g j u dg m en t s i ssued by j u dg es w h o shou l d h ave recused th e m s e lv e s . Se e Li l

j e be rg v . He al t h Se r v s . Ac qui s i t i o n Cor p. , 486 U
. S. 847, 863 ( 19 88 )

. Sp e c i f

i c al l y, t he Rul e pr o vi de s t hat“ [ o ] n m o t i o n a nd j us tt e r m s , t he court m ay rel i eve a pa rt y or i t s l egal representat i ve f rom a f i n alj u dg m en t , order,
o r p ro ce e d in g for

. . . a n y . . . re a so n th a t ju stifies re li e f. ” F e d
. R
. C iv. P
. 6 0 (b )(6). P l ai n t i f fs asser tt h at t h ey can n otfi le a R u l e 60(b) m ot i on i n t h e di st ri ctcourt unti lt hi s C our thas gr ant ed t hem l eave t o do s o, as t hei rnoti c e o f appeal st r i pped t he di st r i c tcour tof j uri sdi c t i on. C onver se l y, defendant s c ont end t hat pl ai n t i f fs’request i s not properl y bef ore t h i s C ou rtb e cau se pl ai n t i f fs never so u g h t R u le 60 (b) rel i ef i n t h e di st ri ctcourt
. W e f i n d that pl ai n t i f

fs hav e not
com pl i ed w ith th e usu alprocedu res f or s eeking rel i ef

f rom a j u dg m en tun der R u le 6 0 (b) w h i l e an a p p ea l i s p en d i n g. N ev erth eless, w e al so con cl u d e t h a t a par t i alr em and i s appro pri at e undert hes e unusualc i r c um st ance s, s o t hat Judge W a r d m a ya s s e s s in th e fi r s tin s t a n c e th e c o n t in u e d v a li d it yo f J u d g e C la r k ’s di sm i ssalof

t h i s c ase. D ef endant s ar e c or r ec tt hat pl ai nt i ffs h ave notf ol l ow ed t he usual proc e dur e s f

o rs e e ki ng r e l i e f

und e rRul e 6 0(b)

. Thi s Cour tha s pr ovi ded extr em el y cl ear gu i da n ce t o l i t i gan t s on h ow t o proceed w i t h a R u l e 60(b) m ot i on af t era not i c e o f

appealhas bee n f

i l ed
. A l t hough an ef fec t i ve not i c e o f

appeal st ri ps di st ri ctcourt s of j u ri sdi ct i on t o g ra n t a Rul e 60 (b) m o t i o n, i t does n ot Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

I ndee d, this procedure has beco me so widely acce pted thatith as now be en codifi ed 5 intoth e F ed er al Rule s, in a provis io n th at b ec a me ef fe ctive on De ce mb er 1 , 2 0 0 9 , j u stwe ek s after plaintiffs submitted their re plybrief. Spe cific ally, new Rule62 .1 provides that: (a) Reli ef Pen ding

Appeal

. If a timelymotion is made for relief that th e co urt lacks authority to grant b ecau se of an appeal thath as b eendocketed and is pending, thecourtmay: (1) defer c onsi derin g the motion ; (2) de nyth e motion ; or (3) state either t hat it would grant the motionif the court of appeals reman ds for that purpose or thatth e motionraises asub stanti al issue. (b) Notice to the Court of Appeal s. Th e movant must promptly notify the circuit clerk und er Federal Rule of Appellate Pro cedur e 1 2.1 if th e di strict court states that it would grant th e motionor that th e motionraises asub stanti al issue. (c) R eman d. The district co urt maydecide the motionif the court of appeals reman ds for that purpose. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1
. 10 p r e v e n t lit ig a n ts fr o m filin gth e m in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w h ile a n a p p e a l is pe ndi ng. I ns t e ad , “ [ t ] he di s t r i c t c o ur t r e t ai ns j ur i s di c t i o n t o c o ns i de ra nd d e ny [ Rul e 6 0(b) ] m o t i o ns , a nd i f i ti ndi c at e s that i t w i l lg r antt he m o t i o n, t he ap pe l l ant [ m ay ] t he n m ak e a m o t i o n i n t he Cour to f Appe al s f

o ra r e m and o f

t he
c a s e in ord er th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt m a y g ra n t su ch m oti on . ” Wi nc he s t er , 68 F. 3d at949 ( quot i ng F err el lv. Tra i l m obi l e, I n c. , 223 F
. 2d 697 , 699 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 5 5 )) (in te r n a l b r a c k e ts a n d e llip s e s o m itt e d ). P la in tiffs h a v e n o t h e e d e d th is 5 gu i da n ce— t h ey seek a r e m an d bu tha ve n otal ready f i l ed a R u l e 60(b) m ot i on w i t h J udg e W ar d. H ow ever, pl ai n t i f

fs’fai l u re t o f

i l e a R u le 6 0(b) m ot i on w i t h t h e di st ri ct
c o ur tdo e s no t s l i p a bl i ndf o l d o ve r o ur e ye s , l e t t i ng us i gno r e t hatt he j udg m e nt
w e a r e r e v iew i n g w a s en tered by a jud ge su b j ect to recu sa l
. T h e sta tu te go ve r ni ng t he r e c us alo f J udg e C l ark i n t hi s c as e i s 2 8 U
. S. C. § 4 55 , a nd t he S u p rem e C ou rt ha s ex p l a i n ed th a t si n ce § 4 5 5 “ne i th er p resc ri b es n or p roh ib i ts
a n y p a rti cu l a r rem ed y” for recu sa lviol a ti on s, “C on gr ess h a s w i sely d elega ted to t h e j u di ci ary t h e t ask of fash i on i n g t h e rem edi es t h at w i l l best serve t h e pu rpose of t h e legisl a ti on . ” L i l j eberg , 486 U
. S

. at 862
. C ou rt s hav e previ ou sl y exerci sed t h i s authori t y on app eal , even w h en rem edi es f or r ecusalvi o la tion s w ere not Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

11 f i rst soughti n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t
. Fo re xa m pl e , i n D avis v. X erox , the N i n th C i r c ui tc ons i der ed w het herr ul i ngs m ade b y a di st r i c tj udge s ubj ec tt o r ec usal h ad t o be va c at e d, de s pi t e t he fac t t he i s s ue w as r ai s e d f o r t he f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l. 81 1 F .2d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 6 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (“O n ly o n a p p e a l did [th e p la in tiff ]
o b ta in co p ies of th e fi rs t ju d g e ’ s r e p o rts a n d b r in g th e m to th e a tte n tion of a court
. [ H i s ] o bj e c t i o n i s s t i l lt i m e l y. ” )

. Si m i l ar l y, i n Po ta sh n ick v. Po rt C ity Cons t r uc t i on C o. , w e r em anded a c as e f ordet er m i nat i on o f

w het hera j udge
s h o u ld h a v e r e c u s e d h im s e lf, a ft e ra t t o r n e y s d is c o v e r e d g r o u n d s fo rth e ju d g e ’s recusalf

ol l ow i n g t h e concl u si on of a t ri al
. 609 F
. 2d 110 1, 110 6, 111 5 ( 5th C i r. 19 80 )

. W e o pt e d no t t o r ul e o n t he m e r i t s o f t he a ppe ali n Pot ashni c k u n t i laf t er th e re c u s a l is s u e h a d fir s t b e e n h e a r d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Id . a t 1 1 0 7 ; seealso Ru s s e l lv . L ane , 890 F. 2d 9 47 , 9 48 ( 7t h Ci r . 1 98 9) (r e m and i ng w i t ho ut ad dr e s s i ng m e r i t s t o a l l o w pr o s e l i t i ga nt t o f i l e Rul e 6 0(b) m o t i o n c hal l e ngi ng orders enter ed by j u dg e w h o ha d recused h i m sel f )

. Th eref

ore, t h e fai l u re of pl ai nt i f fs t o f i l e a R ul e 6 0(b) m ot i on be l ow , w hi l e r egr et t abl e, doe s notde p ri ve us o f aut hor i t y t o c r af

ta r em edy f

orJudge C l ar k’ s pos sibl e v i ol at i on o f § 455. T h at s ai d, i ti s tr u e tha tin som e cases, w h en a pp el l an t s hav e rai sed i ssues pro per l y c ons i der ed underR ul e 6 0(b) for th e f i r stt i m e o n appeal , w e have
r e f us e d t o c o ns i de r t he s e i s s ue s . Fo re xa m pl e , i n L easehol dExpen se R ecove ry, Inc. v. Mot h ers W

ork, I n c. , t he appel l ant as ked f ort he f i r stt i m e o n appealt hat t he s um m ar y j udg m e nte nt ered i n fa vo ro f t he a ppe l l e e b e v ac at e d, a s t he ap p e l l a n tc l a i m e d t h a tt h e a p p e l l e e h a d wi t h h e l d c e r t a i n d o c u m e n t s d u r i ng di sc ove r y. 331 F. 3d 452, 463 ( 5t h C i r . 2003)

. W e f ound t hat t hi s r eques tw as

“ pr o pe r l y s t yl e d” a s a m o t i o n t o s e ta s i de s um m ary j u dg m e ntf o rf r aud , m i srepresentat i on , or m i scondu ctun der R u l e 60(b) ( 3) an d ref u sed t o consi der th e is s u e , p a r tia llya ffir m in gth e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Id . a t 4 6 3 -6 4
. H o w e v er, t h e i n st an tcase ari ses u n der excepti on alci rcum st an ces, di f fe r e nt f r o m t ho s e b e f

o r e us i n L easehol dExpen se R ecove ry . Plai n t i f fs do not Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

12 s pe c ul at i ve l y c l ai m fo rt he f i r s tt i m e o n a ppe alt hatJ udg e Cl ar k s houl d have recused h i m sel f; i n st ead , Ju dg e C l ark s u a spon t e rec u sed h i m sel f af t er a noti ce of a pp ealh ad a l ready b ecom e eff ect i ve. A l lp art i es ag ree h i s r ecusalw as proper, and no o ne di s put e s t hathe o w ne d Sc hl um be r ger L i m i t ed s t o c k whi l e he pre si ded o vert hi s c ase. F urt her m or e, t he s i t uat i on be l ow w as c om pl i c at ed by J u d g e C la r k ’ s J u ly1 3 o r d e rv a c a tin gh is J u ly7 d is m is s a l o r d e r . O n th is a p p e a l,
w e have r ej ec t ed pl ai nt i f fs’ar gum entt hat Judge C l ar k’ s vac at ur o f hi s Jul y 7
o r d e rwa s v a l i d a n d h a d t h e e f fe c to f v a c a t i n gh i s Ma y2 9 or d e r . B e f o r e we rea ch ed this con cl u sion , h ow ev er, i t w ou l d h a ve be en u n u su a lf or p l a i n ti ffs to h a v e a s k e d J u d g e W a r d to s e t a s id e th e M a y2 9 o r d e r , w h ile s im u lta n e o u s ly
a rg u in gon a p p e a l th a t J u d g e C la rk h a d a lre a d yeffe ctiv e ly v a ca te d it. P la in tiffs shou l d h ave f

i l ed a R u l e 60(b) m ot i on w i t h Ju dg e W ard ou tof an abu n da n ce of
ca u ti on , bu t w e h a ve pr ev i ou sly ex p l a i n ed tha t t h e p roce d u res fo r fi l i n g p osta p p e a l R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s a r e n o t “ a ju d ic ia l tig h t r o p e to b e w a lk e d a t p e r il.” L air sey v. A d van ce A brasi ves C o. , 5 42 F. 2d 9 28 , 9 32 ( 5t h Ci r. 1 976)

. I ns t e ad ,
“ [ w ] her e t he l i t i gan thas t i m el y i ni t i at ed pr oc edur e f orr el i ef, he s houl d notbe p en a l i ze d f

or ch oice of t h e ‘w r o n g ’pr oce d u re.” Id
. I n t h e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we c a n n o t r e v ie w th e m e r its o f J u d g e C la r k ’ s fo r u m n o n co n v e n ie n s d is m is s a l a s if
w e h a d n o k n o w le d g e o f h is re c u s a l. I V. A l t hough w e have t he aut hor i t y t o a ddre ss any vi ol at i on o f § 455 t hat
oc c urr ed i n t hi s c as e, w e f i nd t hat i tw oul d be i nappro pri at e f orus t o do s o a t t h is s t a g e , g iv e n t h e l im it e d i n fo r m a t io n i n t h e r e c o r d c o n c e r n in gJ u d g e C la r k ’s acqu i si t i on of S chl u m berger L i m i t ed s t ock. T h e S u prem e C ou rtha s expl ai n ed t hat “ § 4 55( a) c an be vi ol at ed ba se d on an appe ar ance of par t i al i t y, ev en t hough t h e j u dg e w as not c on sci ou s of t h e ci rcum st an ces creat i n g t h e app earan ce of i m p rop ri ety
. ” L i l

j eberg , 4 8 6 U .S . a t 8 5 8
. A s a r e s u lt, if J u d g e C la r k ’ s o w n e r s h ip
o f S c h lu m b e r g e rL im ite d s to c k cr e a te s a n a p p e a r a n c e o f im p a r tia lity , th e n h is Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

13 di sm i ssalof

t h i s c ase w h i l e ow n i n g t h e stoc k w ou l d h ave vi ol ated § 455 ( a) , even i f h e lacked kn ow l edg e of h i s ow n ershi p at t h e t i m e. H ow ever, t h e rec ord does
n otrevealh ow m u ch st ock Ju dg e C l ark acqu i red, it s va l u e, or w h en he acqu i red i t
. Th e r ec or d i s al so s i l enton w het herJudge C l ar k r evi ew ed w hat s t oc k he had i n h eri t e d d ur i ng t he s am e pe r i o d he w as c o ns i de r i ng m o t i o ns i ndi c at i ng S chl u m berger L i m i t ed’ s i n t eresti n t h i s case. A dd i t i on al l y, t h e parti es hav e not extensi vel y di scussed § 455 i n t h ei r bri ef i n g, nor w h et h er vacat u r i s t h e proper r e m e d yfo ra n yv io la tio n o f th e s ta tu te th a t o c c u r r e d
. S ee 486 U
. S. at862 ( exp l ai n i n g t h at vacat u r of j u dg m en t s does n otau t om ati cal l y f ol l ow f rom every v io la tio n o f § 4 5 5 ). G i ven t hes e c ons i der at i ons , w e r em and t hi s ca se i n partt o a l l ow Judge W ard to i n di cat e t o us w h et h er he i s i n cl i n ed to gra n t a R u le 60 (b) m ot i on va c at i ng Jud ge Cl ar k’ s di s m i s s al o f t hi s c as e . I f he i s s o i nc l i ne d, w e w i l lr e m and t hi s c as e i n f

ul ls o t hatJ udg e Cl ar k’ s di s m i s s alc an be v ac at e d a nd h i s f o r um n o n co n v e n ie n s ru lin gre litig a te d
. H o w e v e r , fo r t h e m o m e n t, w e re ta in ju r is d ic tio n s o th a t i f J u d g e W a r d d e n ie s th e m o tio n a n d p la in tiffs a p p e a l h is de ni al , w e w i l lb e a bl e t o r e vi e w bo t h t he de ni al o f t he Rul e 60 (b) m o t i o n a nd t he
m e r its o f J u d g e C la r k ’ s fo r u m n o n co n v e n ie n s d is m is s a l. S e e Po ta s h n ic k , 609 F. 2d at1106-07 (rem andi ng f orl i m i t ed pur pos e o f det er m i ni ng w het herj udge sh ou l d h a ve recu sed h i m self an d the n con soli dat i ng appealof recu sa lru l i n g w i th in itia l m e r its a p p e a l); 1 1 W r i g h t e t a l., sup ra , § 2873 ( 2d ed. Supp. 2010) ( e xp l ai ni ng t hata ppe l l antm aya ppe al“ t he de ni alo f t he [ Rul e 6 0(b) ] m o t i o n a nd of t en t h e app el l ate c ou rtcan consi der t h at ap pea l t ogether w i t h t h e app ealf rom t he o ri gi nalj udg m e nt ” )

. The di s t r i c tc o ur tm ayi s s ue o r de r s a nd c o nduc ta nd regulat e an y proceedi n gs necessary f or t h e pro p e r d i sposi t i on of t h e l i m i t ed
r e m and pr o vi de d f

o rhe r e i n. Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 40685

14 V. Cons e que nt l y, t hi s c as e i s RE M AN D ED f o rf ur t he rp r o c e e d i ngs c o ns i s t e nt
w i t h t hi s o pi ni o n. Case: 09-40685 Document: 00511125863 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/28/2010