Opinion ID: 4548598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Corleys Appealed a Final Decision.

Text: The Corleys invoke our subject-matter jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court entered an order granting the Corleys’ motion to voluntarily dismiss their only remaining claims, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), the Corleys contend that we can hear their appeal. The Navy suppliers respond that we still lack jurisdiction. They argue that an order granting a plaintiff’s motion to 6 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 7 of 33 voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) is not a final decision under section 1291. Under section 1291, “[a] ‘final decision’ is one by which a district court disassociates itself from a case.” Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 408 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 409 (“[T]he statute’s core application is to rulings that terminate an action.”). The voluntary dismissal underlying this appeal arguably fits that definition. It ended the involvement of the district court, and the Corleys have conceded that the bankruptcy court “eliminated” their claims against Fairbanks and Garlock “as a matter of law.” “That the dismissal was without prejudice to filing another suit does not make the cause unappealable, for denial of relief and dismissal of the case ended this suit so far as the District Court was concerned.” United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793, 794 n.1 (1949). But we do not write on a blank slate. Indeed, “the canvas looks like one that Jackson Pollock got to first.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). Our precedent splinters in multiple directions on whether voluntary dismissals without prejudice are final. Compare, e.g., McGregor v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 956 F.2d 1017, 1020 (11th Cir. 1992) (“An order granting a plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) qualifies as a final judgment for purposes of appeal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), with, e.g., State Treasurer v. Barry, 7 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 8 of 33 168 F.3d 8, 13 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[V]oluntary dismissals, granted without prejudice, are not final decisions themselves . . . .”), with, e.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1328–29 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice was final when “there was no attempt to manufacture jurisdiction”). Our divergent decisions can be traced to two opinions of the former Fifth Circuit: LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976), and Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1978). To “determine which of our precedents binds us,” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 846 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2017), we must begin with them. LeCompte involved a plaintiff’s appeal from an order granting his motion under Rule 41(a)(2) to dismiss his complaint without prejudice subject to certain conditions. 528 F.2d at 602. Before reaching the merits, our predecessor court considered whether the order was appealable. Id. It devoted most of its attention to whether the plaintiff had standing to challenge the stringent conditions on refiling that the district court attached to its dismissal order. See id. at 603–04. But before it reached that issue, LeCompte addressed whether the order was final, see id. at 603, which was also necessary to its holding that the order was appealable, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It concluded that “[w]here the trial court allows the plaintiff to dismiss his action without prejudice, the judgment, of course, qualifies as a final 8 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 9 of 33 judgment for purposes of appeal.” LeCompte, 528 F.2d at 603 (internal quotation marks omitted). After concluding that the voluntary dismissal order was final and that the plaintiff was adverse to that order, LeCompte vacated and remanded the order on the merits. Id. at 603–05. Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298, came two years later. After the district court in Ryan had dismissed all but one of the plaintiff’s claims, the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the paragraph of his complaint that contained his remaining substantive allegation. Id. at 300. Although the district court granted the plaintiff’s narrow motion, it “did not purport to dismiss the jurisdictional allegations of [the] complaint . . . and it specifically noted that the dismissal was without prejudice to [the plaintiff’s] right to file again.” Id. When the plaintiff tried to appeal, the former Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction. Id. It concluded that no final judgment existed because “the torso of the plaintiff’s complaint—including the identification of the parties and the jurisdictional allegations—remain[ed] before the district court.” Id. at 301. Ryan later explained that the “chief problem” with finality in the appeal was that the plaintiff’s dismissal motion was “more appropriately considered to be an amendment to the complaint under Rule 15” and that an order granting leave to amend “lacks finality” when it “permits judicial proceedings to continue.” Id. at 302 n.2. Ryan separately concluded that the plaintiff could not take advantage of the Jetco exception to 9 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 10 of 33 finality, which allows parties to appeal interlocutory decisions that were part of a series of orders that “effectively terminated the entire litigation.” Id. at 301–02; see also Jetco Elec. Indus., Inc. v. Gardiner, 473 F.2d 1228, 1231 (5th Cir. 1973). Because the “language of the district court’s order, along with its retention of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, appeared to contemplate that [the plaintiff] would pursue this same action in the same court,” the voluntary dismissal did “not amount to a termination of the litigation between the parties.” Ryan, 577 F.2d at 302. And because the order “neither amount[ed] to an appealable final decision nor [met] the requirements of any exception to the finality rule,” Ryan dismissed the appeal. Id. at 303. LeCompte and Ryan are not in conflict. We can read LeCompte to establish that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is a final decision for the purposes of appeal at least when the court places stringent conditions on refiling. See 528 F.2d at 603. Ryan qualifies that voluntary dismissals are deprived of finality when part of the complaint remains before the district court, which occurs when a plaintiff moves to voluntarily dismiss only part of his remaining complaint without prejudice, the district court grants the motion without purporting to dismiss the remainder of the complaint, and the dismissal order contemplates future filings in the court. See 577 F.2d at 300–02 & n.2. Under these circumstances, the dismissal 10 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 11 of 33 is akin to an order granting leave to amend, which is not final when it “permits judicial proceedings to continue.” See id. at 302 n.2. Perhaps because no conflict existed, both the former Fifth Circuit and, at least initially, this Court held that voluntary dismissals without prejudice were final in a variety of circumstances. Shortly after Ryan, our predecessor court explained that LeCompte “stated the usual rule governing the appealability of orders granting motions for voluntary dismissal” and reiterated that voluntary dismissals under Rule 41(a)(2) are final decisions. Yoffe v. Keller Indus., Inc., 580 F.2d 126, 129 (5th Cir. 1978). This Circuit initially allowed appeals from voluntary dismissals without prejudice without addressing whether a voluntary dismissal was final. See, e.g., Black v. Broward Emp’t & Training Admin., 846 F.2d 1311, 1312 & n.3 (11th Cir. 1988); Studstill v. Borg Warner Leasing, 806 F.2d 1005, 1007 (11th Cir. 1986); McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855, 856 (11th Cir. 1986). But we later cited LeCompte and held that an “order granting voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) is final and appealable” by a defendant who had opposed the plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal. Kirkland v. Nat’l Mortg. Network, Inc., 884 F.2d 1367, 1369–70 (11th Cir. 1989). Because the voluntary dismissal was a final judgment, we explained, “it incorporate[d] and [brought] up for review the preceding nonfinal order” that the defendant challenged. Id. at 1370. Finally, in McGregor v. Board of Commissioners, which 11 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 12 of 33 involved a plaintiff’s challenge to several claims that the district court had dismissed on the merits before granting the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his remaining claims, we quoted LeCompte and Yoffe and held that “[a]n order granting a plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) qualifies as a final judgment for purposes of appeal.” 956 F.2d at 1020 (internal quotation marks omitted). The conflict came in Mesa v. United States, which also involved an order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a suit without prejudice. See 61 F.3d 20, 21 (11th Cir. 1995). Mesa held that the order of dismissal before it was not final. See id. It interpreted Ryan to hold that “the voluntary dismissal of [a] plaintiff’s remaining claim could not be considered final because a voluntary dismissal is without prejudice to the moving party to file those claims again.” Id. at 22. This understanding of finality became the standard in this Circuit for addressing voluntary dismissals without prejudice. See State Treasurer, 168 F.3d at 13; Constr. Aggregates, Ltd. v. Forest Commodities Corp., 147 F.3d 1334, 1335–37 (11th Cir. 1998) (extending Mesa to stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)). We first spotted the tension in our precedent in State Treasurer v. Barry, 168 F.3d 8. After the district court in State Treasurer granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the remaining claim in the suit. Id. at 9–10; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 12 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 13 of 33 (allowing the plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if all parties sign a stipulation of dismissal). We dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal because we concluded that Mesa and its reading of Ryan controlled. See State Treasurer, 168 F.3d at 16. Although we failed to mention McGregor, we acknowledged that LeCompte and Kirkland had allowed appeals from voluntary dismissals without prejudice. Id. at 14. But we concluded that the reasoning of these two decisions did not extend to stipulated dismissals. Id. at 15. LeCompte and Kirkland, we explained, involved court orders of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), not stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1). Id.; see also Kirkland, 884 F.2d at 1369–70 (concluding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice “under Rule 41(a)(2) is final”); LeCompte, 528 F.2d at 603 (concluding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is final “[w]here the trial court allows the plaintiff to dismiss his action without prejudice” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We added, in dicta, that LeCompte “is limited to a subset of Rule 41(a)(2) dismissals”: dismissals in which the court “placed stringent conditions on the plaintiff’s ability to re-file its dismissed claims.” State Treasurer, 168 F.3d at 15. This appeal picks up where State Treasurer left off. To be sure, we have revisited whether stipulated or noticed dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1) are final. See, e.g., Equity Inv. Partners, LP v. Lenz, 594 F.3d 1338, 1341–42 n.2 (11th Cir. 2010); Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d 1257, 1265–66 (11th Cir. 1999); Univ. of S. 13 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 14 of 33 Ala., 168 F.3d at 408 n.1. But we have not addressed the tension between our earliest precedents and Mesa as applied to voluntary dismissals under Rule 41(a)(2). Cf. Hood v. Plantation Gen. Med. Ctr., Ltd., 251 F.3d 932, 933–34 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that an order granting a motion for voluntary dismissal was not final when a claim remained pending in the district court and that voluntarily dismissing the remaining claim did not trigger the Jetco exception). That tension is squarely presented in this appeal. Two principles govern our approach to resolving conflicts in our precedent. First, we are “obligated, if at all possible, to distill from apparently conflicting prior panel decisions a basis of reconciliation and to apply that reconciled rule.” United States v. Hogan, 986 F.2d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1993). And second, if we cannot reconcile our precedent, we must follow the oldest decision that governs the issue. See Gen. Mills, 846 F.3d at 1338; accord Bryan A. Garner et al., The Law of Judicial Precedent § 36, at 303–04 (2016). We see no way to give force to Mesa in the light of our earlier precedents. Even if State Treasurer is correct that we can limit LeCompte to situations in which the district court attached “stringent conditions” to the voluntary-dismissal order, 168 F.3d at 15, we must still reconcile Mesa with our other earlier decisions, at least one of which is materially identical to it. In both McGregor and Mesa, the plaintiff suffered an adverse decision on some of his claims and voluntarily 14 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 15 of 33 dismissed his remaining claims without prejudice to challenge the earlier decision on appeal. See Mesa, 61 F.3d at 21; McGregor, 956 F.2d at 1018–20. McGregor concluded that “an order granting a plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) ‘qualifies as a final judgment for purposes of appeal.’” 956 F.2d at 1020 (quoting Yoffe, 580 F.2d at 129, and LeCompte, 528 F.2d at 603). Conversely, Mesa later concluded that these orders were not final. 61 F.3d at 21– 22. Because Mesa did not even mention McGregor, it provided no reason to distinguish that decision. And we cannot find one. Because we cannot harmonize our decisions, the earliest-precedent rule applies. See Gen. Mills, 846 F.3d at 1340. And under that rule, we must follow McGregor, which both predates Mesa and is consistent with our earlier decisions. So we hold that an order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss the remainder of a complaint under Rule 41(a)(2) “qualifies as a final judgment for purposes of appeal.” McGregor, 956 F.2d at 1020 (quoting Yoffe, 580 F.2d at 129, and LeCompte, 528 F.2d at 603). And because the Corleys appealed from such an order, we have jurisdiction under section 1291. B. We Have Territorial Jurisdiction to Hear This Appeal. The next issue concerns our territorial jurisdiction under section 1294, which mandates that “appeals from reviewable decisions of the district . . . courts shall be taken . . . to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district.” 28 U.S.C. 15 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 16 of 33 § 1294. The Corleys urge us to hold that “reviewable decisions” in section 1294 refers to appealable decisions—that is, decisions that federal laws grant circuit courts jurisdiction to review. Here, that decision is the voluntary-dismissal order. See id. § 1291. Because the Northern District of Alabama issued that order, we would have jurisdiction to review the order as “the court of appeals for the circuit embracing [that] district.” Id. § 1294; see also id. § 41. The Navy suppliers counter that the reviewable decision is the order that the Corleys challenge—that is, the denial of their motion for reconsideration by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania— which would deprive us of jurisdiction. See id. § 41. The parties’ disagreement tracks a circuit split over the application of section 1294 to interlocutory orders that precede an inter-circuit transfer. Most circuits to reach the question have concluded that they can review an out-of-circuit interlocutory decision so long as they have jurisdiction over the district court that issued the appealable decision. See Kalama v. Matson Navigation Co., 875 F.3d 297, 305 (6th Cir. 2017); In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 213–14 (3d Cir. 2006); Jones v. InfoCure Corp., 310 F.3d 529, 532–34 (7th Cir. 2002); Hill v. Henderson, 195 F.3d 671, 674–75 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Chaiken v. VV Publ’g Corp., 119 F.3d 1018, 1025 n.2 (2d Cir. 1997); Tel-Phonic Servs., Inc. v. TBS Int’l, Inc., 975 F.2d 1134, 1138 (5th Cir. 1992). Conversely, the Tenth Circuit has held that it lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by an out-of-circuit district court, 16 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 17 of 33 even when the appealable decision comes from within its boundaries. See McGeorge v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 871 F.2d 952, 954 (10th Cir. 1989). In its view, jurisdiction under section 1294 depends on whether the district court that issued the interlocutory order under review lies within its territorial boundaries. See id. We agree with the majority interpretation and hold that the phrase “reviewable decisions” in section 1294 refers to appealable decisions. Congress has not given us the power to review interlocutory orders at will. Outside of narrow circumstances not relevant here, we can review those orders only when they “merge into a final judgment of the district court.” Akin v. PAFEC Ltd., 991 F.2d 1550, 1563 (11th Cir. 1993). So even when we consider the merits of an interlocutory order, we still “review” the final decision into which the earlier order merged. See Kalama, 875 F.3d at 305 (“A partial dismissal is not ‘reviewable’ until it can be appealed—generally, when it ‘merges’ into a final, appealable judgment.”). That final decision is necessarily the reviewable decision. The rest of section 1294 dispels any lingering ambiguity about the meaning of “reviewable decision.” See Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 56 (1995) (“[I]t is a fundamental principle of statutory construction . . . that the meaning of a word cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which it is used.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Section 1294 concerns “appeals from reviewable decisions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (emphasis added). This language, of 17 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 18 of 33 course, presumes that the “reviewable decision[]” is an appealable decision. After all, there can be no “appeal[] from” a non-appealable decision. Cf. Cox v. Adm’r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1413 n.4 (11th Cir. 1994) (“When reviewing an appeal from a final judgment, this court can review rulings on previous interlocutory orders.” (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (giving courts of appeals jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions” of district courts). Adopting the minority interpretation would require us to ignore this context, which we cannot do. The Navy suppliers argue that our decision in Roofing and Sheet Metal Services, Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1982), requires a different interpretation of section 1294. In Roofing, the Western District of Arkansas transferred the underlying suit to the Southern District of Alabama, and the appellant sought to challenge that transfer order on appeal to this Court. See id. at 984–85. We held that section 1294 prevented us from reviewing the transfer order. Id. at 986–87; see also Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding the same); cf. In re Corrugated Container Anti-Trust Litig., 620 F.2d 1086, 1090–91 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that section 1294 required dismissing an appeal from a final order of contempt issued by the Southern District of New York against a third-party witness). The Navy suppliers argue that Roofing demands that we dismiss the Corleys’ appeal. 18 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 19 of 33 We disagree. The holding of Roofing does not extend beyond transfer orders. Roofing reached its decision in the shadow of what it called the “well established” rule that “a transferee court cannot directly review the transfer order itself.” 689 F.2d at 986 (quoting Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 924 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc)); see also id. at 987 (“[W]e know of no case in which [any] circuit . . . has in fact reviewed a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit.”). When Roofing held that it could not review the transfer order before it, it joined the uniform consensus of our sister circuits that an out-of-circuit transfer order is not reviewable on appeal in the transferee circuit. See Posnanski v. Gibney, 421 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Copley, 25 F.3d 660, 662 (8th Cir. 1994); Lewelling v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 879 F.2d 212, 218 (6th Cir. 1989); McGeorge, 871 F.2d at 953–54; Reyes v. Supervisor of the Drug Enf’t Admin., 834 F.2d 1093, 1095 (1st Cir. 1987); Linnell v. Sloan, 636 F.2d 65, 67 (4th Cir. 1980); Starnes, 512 F.2d at 924; Purex Corp. v. St. Louis Nat’l Stockyards Co., 374 F.2d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1967); see also Songbyrd, Inc. v. Estate of Grossman, 206 F.3d 172, 178 (2d Cir. 2000) (requiring a party to file a retransfer motion in the transferee court to appeal a transfer order). But see Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc., 735 F.2d 763, 772 n.9 (3d Cir. 1984) (suggesting in dicta that a transferee circuit could review a transfer order). This bar does not encompass other out-of-circuit interlocutory decisions. See Hill, 195 F.3d at 677 (concluding that 19 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 20 of 33 the “complex and somewhat conflicting pattern of reviewability” of transfer orders does not affect the reviewability of other pretransfer orders). In sum, we have territorial jurisdiction. The term “reviewable decisions” in section 1294 refers to appealable decisions. The Northern District of Alabama issued the final, appealable decision in this suit. And, of course, we can hear appeals from that court. C. The Corleys Have Standing to Appeal. The final jurisdictional issue concerns our jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, which limits our authority to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Although the parties do not dispute this issue, “[l]ongstanding principles of federal law oblige us to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction.” Green v. Graham, 906 F.3d 955, 961 (11th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because our precedent leaves doubt about whether we have Article III jurisdiction to hear the Corleys’ appeal from their own voluntary dismissal, we address the issue. “To have a case or controversy, a litigant must establish that he has standing, which must exist ‘throughout all stages of litigation,’” including on appeal. United States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967, 971 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 705 (2013)). Standing is an “irreducible constitutional minimum,” and a “court is powerless to continue” in its absence. CAMP Legal Def. 20 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 21 of 33 Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish standing, a litigant must prove that “he has suffered a concrete and particularized injury.” Amodeo, 916 F.3d at 971 (quoting Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 704). In the appellate context, “the primary meaning of the injury requirement is adverseness.” Id. Specifically, the litigant “must be adverse as to the final judgment” to appeal from that judgment. OFS Fitel, 549 F.3d at 1356 (internal quotation marks omitted). As a general rule, a plaintiff is not adverse to a voluntary dismissal that he requested. See, e.g., Druhan v. Am. Mut. Life, 166 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 1999). This rule “can easily be understood,” the former Fifth Circuit explained, because “the plaintiff has acquired that which he sought,” so the order cannot be adverse. LeCompte, 528 F.2d at 603. Appellate standing is murkier when a plaintiff appeals from a voluntary dismissal to challenge an adverse interlocutory order. On the one hand, we have held that plaintiffs have standing to appeal from a voluntary dismissal if the adverse interlocutory order is effectively “case-dispositive” and “the district court bases its dismissal with prejudice on the fact that its interlocutory decision disposed of the entire case.” OFS Fitel, 549 F.3d at 1359 (order excluding expert testimony that was legally necessary to prevail). On the other hand, interlocutory orders that do not address the merits of a plaintiff’s claim cannot establish 21 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 22 of 33 appellate standing. See Druhan, 166 F.3d at 1326 (order denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand her suit to state court); accord Woodard v. STP Corp., 170 F.3d 1043, 1044 (11th Cir. 1999). The second class of appeals lacks adverseness because there is “no contested court ruling, either interlocutory or final, as to the merits of the plaintiff’s claims” and so “the dismissal on the merits derives only from the plaintiff’s own written request.” OFS Fitel, 549 F.3d at 1356. This appeal does not fit neatly within our precedents on voluntary dismissals. Unlike the plaintiff in OFS Fitel, the Corleys did not voluntarily dismiss their claims to contest a “case-dispositive” order. They instead challenge a years-old order denying their motion to reconsider a summary judgment in favor of some defendants. But unlike the plaintiffs in Druhan and Woodard, the Corleys contest an order that completely resolved their claims against certain defendants on the merits and merged into the final judgment. See Akin, 991 F.2d at 1563 (“When a district court enters a final judgment, all prior non-final orders and rulings which produced the judgment are merged into the judgment and subject to review on appeal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because the Corleys never consented to that order, the final judgment contains an adverse decision on the merits that does not “derive[] only from the plaintiff’s own written request.” OFS Fitel, 549 F.3d at 1356. 22 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 23 of 33 Although our precedent on voluntary dismissals does not resolve this appeal, a broader principle of appellate standing establishes that the Corleys are adverse to the final judgment: “a party is ‘aggrieved’ and ordinarily can appeal a decision ‘granting in part and denying in part the remedy requested.’” Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266, 271 (1998) (quoting United States v. Jose, 519 U.S. 54, 56 (1996)). Even though the Corleys are not adverse to the order of voluntary dismissal, which granted their requested remedy for Fairbanks and Garlock, they are adverse to the order that denied their motion to reconsider the summary judgment in favor of the Navy suppliers. And the latter order is just as much a part of the final judgment as the voluntary-dismissal order. So, notwithstanding their voluntary dismissal, the Corleys are adverse to part of the final judgment, which is enough to establish appellate standing. See Aaro, Inc. v. Daewoo Int’l (Am.) Corp., 755 F.2d 1398, 1400–01 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that plaintiffs who prevailed at trial on some of their claims and consented to a remittitur order could still appeal because they challenged an adverse partial summary judgment that had merged into the final judgment); see also Forney, 524 U.S. at 271; OFS Fitel, 549 F.3d at 1359 (“[W]hen the appeal is from a final judgment, the fact that the appeal substantively concerns an interlocutory ruling is no bar to jurisdiction.”). 23 Case: 18-10474 Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Page: 24 of 33