Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/246/176/469062/
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 03:11:51
Document Index: 675336647

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1291', '§ 1292', '§ 2201', '§ 2201', '§ 3915', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292']

Henrietta D., Nidia S., Simone A., Ezzard S., John R., and Pedro R., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York, Marva Hammons, Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration and Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, and Mary E. Glass, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Defendants Appellants, 246 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2001) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Second Circuit › 2001 › Henrietta D., Nidia S., Simone A., Ezzard S., John R., and Pedro R., on Behalf of Themselves and All...
Henrietta D., Nidia S., Simone A., Ezzard S., John R., and Pedro R., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York, Marva Hammons, Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration and Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, and Mary E. Glass, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Defendants Appellants, 246 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2001)
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 246 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2001)
The parties posit two bases for our jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1292(a) (1).
The City and State defendants argue that the district court's decision is final because the court awarded plaintiffs declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. This contention is plainly incorrect. An award of declaratory relief on all claims is a final order in a case in which only declaratory relief is sought, see id. § 2201 (a declaratory judgment "shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such"); but a declaration has no such effect when other remedial issues remain unresolved. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742 (1976). The declaratory judgment in this case did nothing more than determine liability, leaving the measure of prospective relief for another day. Such an order "has been a classic example of non-finality" since "the time of Chief Justice Marshall."1 Taylor v. Board of Educ., 288 F.2d 600, 602 (2d Cir. 1961) (Friendly, J.); see also 15B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3915.2 (2d ed. 1992) (" [A] partial determination [of relief] cannot be elevated to finality simply by characterizing it as a declaratory 'judgment.'").
With so much left to be done, the district court's directive to "close the case" is insufficient to vest this Court with jurisdiction under § 1291. See Fiataruolo v. United States, 8 F.3d 930, 937 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Finality is determined on the basis of pragmatic, not needlessly rigid pro forma, analysis."). The intent of the district court judge is relevant for purposes of § 1291 when the court's rulings reveal that the action could be final and it therefore matters whether the trial judge contemplated further proceedings. See Ellender v. Schweiker, 781 F.2d 314, 317 (2d Cir. 1986) (concluding that a decision was "final" after analyzing the rulings in the case as well as the intent of the district court judge). But a district court's assertion of finality cannot deliver appellate jurisdiction to review a decision that is not otherwise "final" for purposes of § 1291. Similarly, in this case nothing turns on the district court's broad pronouncement that "Judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff [s] and against the defendant [s]." See Spates v. Manson, 619 F.2d 204, 209 n.3 (2d Cir. 1980) (Friendly, J.) (concluding that the district court's "use of the word 'judgment'" was immaterial to the question whether its decision was final). "Appealability turns on what has been ordered, not on how it has been described." Id.
Section 1292(a) (1), a "narrowly tailored exception" to § 1291's final judgment rule, Huminski v. Rutland City Police Dep't, 221 F.3d 357, 359 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam), allows the appeal of interlocutory orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions...." § 1292(a) (1). Plaintiffs contend that we have jurisdiction because the district court granted them injunctive relief.
To qualify as an "injunction" under § 1292(a) (1), a district court order must grant at least part of the ultimate, coercive relief sought by the moving party. See HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 48 F.3d 623, 632 & n.5 (2d Cir. 1995) (requiring that the order be "directed to a party, enforceable by contempt, and designed to accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint," and reserving the issue of whether the appellant must also demonstrate "serious consequences" to its interests); Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592, 596 (2d Cir. 1994) (" [A]n order that 'does not grant part or all of the ultimate relief sought' in an action cannot be appealed under § 1292(a) (1)") (quoting Ronson Corp. v. Liquifin Aktiengesellschaft, 508 F.2d 399, 401 (2d Cir. 1974)); Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433, 1439-40 (2d Cir. 1991) (relief must be coercive, not declaratory, to be appealable under § 1292(a) (1)). No order entered by Judge Johnson meets this threshold test.
At oral argument, plaintiffs argued that defendants had been ordered to "meet their obligations" under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act; but plaintiffs could not direct our attention to such language and we do not see it. In any event, an "obey the law" order entered in a case arising under statutes so general as the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act would not pass muster under Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that injunctions be "specific in terms" and "describe in reasonable detail... the act or acts sought to be restrained." Id.; see S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232, 240 (2d Cir. 2001) ("'Under Rule 65(d), an injunction must be more specific than a simple command that the defendant obey the law.'") (quoting Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal, 89 F.3d 41, 51 (2d Cir. 1996)); cf. Sterling Drug v. Bayer AG, 14 F.3d 733, 748 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that "an injunction that follows the language of the statute at issue may be appropriate in some cases where the context clarifies the scope of the injunction"). We are not even sure that such an order would provide us with jurisdiction under § 1292(a) (1). See Original Great Am. Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cookies, Ltd., 970 F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir. 1992) (Posner, J.) ("The acid test of whether a purported injunction is appealable is whether it is in sufficient though not exact compliance with Rule 65(d) that a violation could be punished by contempt or some other sanction.").
Both the "Judgment" and the memorandum and order's "Remedies" section merely declare liability and appoint Magistrate Judge Pollak to "monitor compliance with the terms of this order" and to "compel compliance with the requirements of this judgment." However, the order contains no terms and the judgment contains no requirements. It appears to us that the district judge has chosen to follow a path well-worn by equity judges overseeing complex, institutional litigation: determine liability first, then ask the parties to propose remedial plans to the court.2 See, e.g., Spates, 619 F.2d at 208-09; Taylor, 288 F.2d at 601. But whatever the district court has in mind, we lack jurisdiction under § 1292(a) (1) until plaintiffs are granted at least part of the ultimate, coercive relief they seek.