Opinion ID: 167914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fed. R C iv. P. 23(f)

Text: -8- Rule 23 was am ended in 1998 to add subsection (f), which perm its interlocutory appeals of district court orders granting or denying class certification. It states: A court of appeals m ay in its discretion perm it an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying class action certification under this rule if application is made to it within ten days after entry of the order. An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). Interlocutory appeals have long been disfavored in the law, and properly so. They disrupt and delay the proceedings below. See 19 James W m . M oore, M oore’s Federal Practice § 201.10[1] (3d ed. 2006) (“The purposes of the final judgm ent rule are to avoid piecem eal litigation, to prom ote judicial efficiency, and to defer to the decisions of the trial court. Unfettered interlocutory appeals would disrupt both the trial and appellate processes.”); 15A Charles A lan W right, Arthur R. M iller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3907, at 269 (2d ed. 1991) (“W hen courts attempt to explain the policies that underlie the final judgm ent rule, . . . [they] speak of ‘efficiency,’ protecting the role of the trial judge, and the need to avoid such evils as interference with the trial court, deciding unnecessary issues, and deliberate delay or harassm ent.”). But som etim es countervailing considerations predominate. The consideration that led to adoption of subsection (f) is that a class-certification determ ination can force a resolution of the case that is independent of the merits. W hen class-action status -9- is denied, the plaintiffs m ay need to abandon the case, or settle for a pittance, because the cost of continuing will far outweigh any potential recovery in the individual actions remaining. And when class-action status is granted, the defendant m ay be facing such enorm ous potential liability that a significant settlem ent becom es the only prudent course. As the Advisory Com m ittee note puts it: [S]everal concerns justify expansion of present opportunities to appeal. An order denying certification m ay confront the plaintiff with a situation in which the only sure path to appellate review is by proceeding to final judgm ent on the m erits of an individual claim that, standing alone, is far smaller than the costs of litigation. An order granting certification, on the other hand, m ay force a defendant to settle rather than incur the costs of defending a class action and run the risk of potentially ruinous liability. These concerns can be m et at low cost by establishing in the court of appeals a discretionary power to grant interlocutory review in cases that show appeal-worthy certification issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory com m ittee’s note, 1998 Am endm ents, Subdivision (f). But this opportunity for an interlocutory appeal is tightly confined. First, “[t]he court of appeals is given unfettered discretion whether to permit the appeal, akin to the discretion exercised by the Supreme Court in acting on a petition for certiorari.” Id. And second, there is a short time limit— 10 days— within which the aggrieved party can ask the court of appeals to exercise its discretion. See id. (“The 10-day period for seeking permission to appeal is designed to reduce the risk that attempted appeals w ill disrupt continuing proceedings.”). Because this -10- timeliness requirement is mandatory 1 , we m ust first determine w hether Plaintiffs satisfied it.