Opinion ID: 6326894
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Finality and Manufactured Jurisdiction

Text: “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have jurisdiction to review all final decisions of the district courts of the United States. A decision is final when it ends the litigation on the 2 In district court, on September 22, 2020, KCG moved for entry of default against Decision One under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), and the clerk did so the next day. But on October 8, 2020, KCG “dismiss[ed] without prejudice their claims against” Decision One. Aplt. App. at 218. KCG did not request or apply for entry of default judgment against Decision One under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), and the district court did not enter one. The court’s separate judgment on April 6, 2021, referred to its order dismissing DPG and “not[ed] that Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed its claims against all remaining Defendants.” Aplt. App. at 227. 3 Appellate Case: 21-5022 Document: 010110662673 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 4 merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Eastom v. City of Tulsa, 783 F.3d 1181, 1184 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, a party may not “manufacture finality by obtaining a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of some claims so that others may be appealed.” Spring Creek Expl. & Prod. Co. v. Hess Bakken Inv. II, LLC, 887 F.3d 1003, 1015 (10th Cir. 2018). For example, in Cook v. Rocky Mountain Bank Note Co., 974 F.2d 147, 147-48 (10th Cir. 1992), the plaintiff dismissed without prejudice two of her claims so she could appeal the district court’s dismissal of a third claim with prejudice, despite the district court’s denial of her Rule 54(b) motion. We dismissed the appeal, reasoning that “[a] plaintiff cannot be allowed to undermine the requirements of Rule 54(b) by seeking [voluntary] dismissal of her remaining claims and then appealing the claim that was dismissed with prejudice.” Id. at 148; see also Heimann v. Snead, 133 F.3d 767, 769 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“Parties may not confer appellate jurisdiction upon us by obtaining a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of some claims so that others may be appealed.”). There are exceptions to this rule. A decision may be final when  A claim dismissed without prejudice was predicated on a claim that was dismissed with prejudice. See Jackson v. Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc., 462 F.3d 1234, 1238 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that state civil conspiracy claim dismissed without prejudice was final and appealable because the underlying predicate tort claims were dismissed with prejudice).  The statute of limitations has run on claims dismissed without prejudice. See Bragg v. Reed, 592 F.2d 1136, 1138 (10th Cir. 1979); cf. Eastom, 783 F.3d at 1183-85 (holding that dismissal was not final where the statute of limitations had not run on the last remaining claim voluntarily dismissed without prejudice). 4 Appellate Case: 21-5022 Document: 010110662673 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 5  Claims remain against unserved defendants. In Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), we held that unresolved claims against two unserved defendants did not “prevent” the finality of a prior decision, but failure to enter judgment on a third defendant who was served did prevent the prior decision from being final. Id. at 847-48. But in Adams v. C3 Pipeline Construction Inc., 17 F.4th 40 (10th Cir. 2021), we explained that “the district court’s expectation of further proceedings against unserved defendants means its dismissal of served defendants is not final.” Id. at 55 n.4.