Opinion ID: 2799728
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The December 12 Order

Text: Appellees argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because BP did not appeal the district court’s December 12 order affirming the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation within thirty days of its docketing. They contend that BP is effectively appealing the December 12 order because it is challenging the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation. When the Interpretation was released, BP challenged it in the district court; the district court upheld the Interpretation in the December 12 order emailed to the parties. BP never filed a direct appeal of the order, instead waiting to appeal the specific awards to the three Sealed Claimants. By failing to appeal this determination, 8 Case: 13-31296 Document: 00513036479 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 No. 13-31296 c/w Nos. 13-31299, 13-31302 Appellees contend, BP has waived any argument that the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation is incorrect. In support of this argument, Appellees cite our decision in Medical Center Pharmacy v. Holder, 634 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2011). In that case, a group of pharmacies sued for declaratory and injunctive relief from certain FDA regulations. Id. at 832. After the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the FDA appealed, and we reversed. Id. at 832–33. On remand, the FDA presented an argument that it did not raise in its summary-judgment appeal and the district court entered judgment for the FDA. Id. at 834. On appeal, we held that the FDA had waived its argument by failing to raise it in the first appeal. Id. at 834–36. Here, BP did not waive its challenge of the awards to the Sealed Claimants by failing to appeal the December 12 order. It is well established that parties are not required to appeal interlocutory orders. See In re Chicken Antitrust Litig. Am. Poultry, 669 F.2d 228, 236 (5th Cir. 1982) (“Making interlocutory appeals mandatory . . . would turn the policy against piecemeal appeals on its head.”); Caradelis v. Reinferia Panama, S.A., 384 F.2d 589, 591 n.1 (5th Cir. 1967) (“[Appellant] lost no rights by failing to take such an [interlocutory] appeal.”). Appellees’ reliance on Medical Center Pharmacy is misplaced; in that case, the party failed to raise an argument in its first appeal from a final judgment. 643 F.3d at 835–36. The December 12 order affirming the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation was not a final judgment. See Deepwater Horizon I, 732 F.3d at 332 n.3. Thus, BP did not forfeit its right to appeal the nonprofit awards to the Sealed Claimants by failing to first appeal the December 12 order. See Matherne v. Wilson, 851 F.2d 752, 756 n.9 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[O]n principle, the interlocutory appeal is permissive, not mandatory, 9 Case: 13-31296 Document: 00513036479 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 No. 13-31296 c/w Nos. 13-31299, 13-31302 and a party does not forfeit a right to appeal after judgment for failure to appeal interlocutorily.” (citing 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 110.8 (1986))).