Opinion ID: 3011746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction and Final, Appealable Or ders

Text: For purposes of appellate jurisdiction, we must determine first whether there was a final order entered in this case and, if so, when it became appealable. Federal law provides that we shall have jurisdiction over appeals fr om all final decisions of the District Courts of the United States. 28 U.S.C. S 1291. A decision is consideredfinal for purposes of section 1291 when the District Court's decisionends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 710-11, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 1718 (1996); see also Van Cauwenberghe v. Biar d, 482 U.S. 517, 521, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 1949 (1988); Aluminum Com. of America v. Beazer East Inc., 124 F.3d 551, 557 (3d Cir. 1997); Christy v. Horn, 115 F.3d 201, 203 (3d Cir . 1997). Conversely, if the order specifically contemplates further activity by the District Court, it is not considered final. If the order contemplates only ministerial actions by the District Court however, finality may exist. See Paiewonsky Assoc. Inc. v. Sharp Props. Inc. 998 F.2d 145, 150 (3d Cir. 1990). An order dismissing a case outright is, of course, final and appealable. Trent v. Dial Med. of Florida et al., 33 F.3d 217, 220 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Callison, 844 F.2d 133, 134-35 & n.1 (3d Cir. 1988)). We have even indicated that dismissals without pr ejudice may be final and appealable if the District Court believes its ruling ends the litigation. See id. (citing United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793, 794 n.1, 69 S.Ct. 824, 825 n.1 (1949)). We have cautioned, however, that such dismissals could not be appealable until the party seeking relief renounces any intention to reinstate litigation. Id.; see also Tier nan v. Devoe, 923 F.2d 1024, 1031 (3d Cir. 1991).