Opinion ID: 5819072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Two jurisdictional matters warrant brief discussion. First, “[a]s a general matter, the courts of appeal have jurisdiction only to review the ‘final decisions’ of district courts.” Miller v. Basic Research, LLC, 750 F.3d 1173, 1175 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291). “A final judgment is one that terminates all matters as to all parties and causes of action.” Utah v. Norton, 396 F.3d 1281, 1286 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Everharts’ claims against the City of Hobbs remained pending when the district court entered its order denying their Motion for Issue Preclusion and granting summary judgment to CYFD, Ms. Becker, and Ms. Valderaz, the order appealed was not a final judgment. However, “an otherwise nonfinal decision becomes final and appealable if the district court adjudicates all remaining claims against all remaining parties before the appellate court acts to dismiss the appeal . . . for lack of jurisdiction.” Harbert v. Healthcare Servs. Grp., Inc., 391 F.3d 1140, 1146 (10th Cir. 2004). Thus, upon the district court entering its order as to the City of Hobbs, its earlier order denying the 8 Appellate Case: 20-2078 Document: 010110631019 Date Filed: 01/12/2022 Page: 9 Motion for Issue Preclusion and granting summary judgment became an appealable order. And our case law holds that an appellant need not file a new notice of appeal once finality occurs so long as the original, premature appeal remains pending. See id. (“The district court’s nonfinal decision therefore became final as a result of the post-appeal proceedings in the district court. We hold that the notice of appeal filed in this case was effective to confer appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s . . . Order.”). Therefore, the absence of a new notice of appeal filed following the final resolution of the Everharts’ action as against the City of Hobbs does not deprive this court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Second, CYFD, Ms. Becker, and Ms. Valderaz argue we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of the Everharts’ Motion for Issue Preclusion. CYFD, Ms. Becker, and Ms. Valderaz are correct to the extent they assert a ruling denying issue preclusion does not resolve any claim against any party, no less all claims against all parties. But what CYFD, Ms. Becker, and Ms. Valderaz disregard is that once a final judgment enters, an appellate court may “review all stages of the proceeding that effectively may be reviewed and corrected.” Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). And we can effectively review the district court’s denial of the Motion for Issue Preclusion. Assuming the Everharts were correct that the district court erred in denying their motion, we could reverse the denial of their motion, vacate the grant of summary judgment, and remand for the district court to reconsider summary judgment after application of principles of issue 9 Appellate Case: 20-2078 Document: 010110631019 Date Filed: 01/12/2022 Page: 10 preclusion. Accordingly, we have appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the Everharts’ Motion for Issue Preclusion