Opinion ID: 790924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: defendants' appeals: appellate jurisdiction

Text: 44 Defendants argue that the district court's order for remands is appealable either under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which permits appeals from final judgments and from final determinations fitting within the collateral order doctrine, or under § 1292(b), which provides a framework for interlocutory appeals from some nonfinal orders. None of the authorities on which defendants rely, however, supports the proposition that an appeal may be entertained under either of those sections, or by any other means, from an order of the district court that remands an action of the type asserted here to state court on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 45 Section 1447 of Title 28 of the United States Code governs procedures in cases that have been removed to the district court from a state court. Subsection (c) of § 1447 provides in pertinent part as follows: 46 A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 47 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Subsection (d) of § 1447 provides that, except in certain civil rights cases, [a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise .... Id. § 1447(d) (emphasis added). 48 Despite § 1447(d)'s facial breadth, the Supreme Court has made clear that `only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d),' Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co., 517 U.S. 706, 712, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (quoting Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995) ( Things Remembered )); see, e.g., Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 345-46, 96 S.Ct. 584, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976) ( Thermtron ), abrogated on other grounds by Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 715, 116 S.Ct. 1712. Thus, review of remands not based on a defect in the procedure used for removal or on the absence of subject matter jurisdiction is not barred by § 1447(d). See, e.g., Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 715, 116 S.Ct. 1712 (remand based on abstention was appealable under § 1291 as a final collateral order); Thermtron, 423 U.S. at 344-45, 96 S.Ct. 584 (remand premised on the district court's crowded docket was reviewable on petition for mandamus); Minot v. Eckardt-Minot, 13 F.3d 590, 593 (2d Cir.1994) ( Minot ) (remand based on abstention was appealable as a final collateral order); Clorox Co. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 779 F.2d 517, 520 (9th Cir.1985) (same re remand based on a theory of contractual waiver of the right to remove); Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 276-77 (9th Cir.1984) (same re remand based on enforcement of a forum selection clause). 49 It remains well established, however, that if the remand was premised on a flaw encompassed by § 1447(c)— i.e., a defect in the removal procedure or the absence of subject matter jurisdiction—§ 1447(d) makes the remand unreviewable, either through appeal or by writ of mandamus. In Thermtron, the Supreme Court noted that § 1447(d) 50 prohibits review of all remand orders issued pursuant to § 1447(c) whether erroneous or not and whether review is sought by appeal or by extraordinary writ. This has been the established rule under § 1447(d) and its predecessors stretching back to 1887.... If a trial judge purports to remand a case on the ground that it was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, his order is not subject to challenge in the court of appeals by appeal, by mandamus, or otherwise. 51 423 U.S. at 343, 96 S.Ct. 584 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 351, 96 S.Ct. 584 (in § 1447(d), Congress immunized from all forms of appellate review any remand order issued on the grounds specified in § 1447(c), whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by an appellate court). 52 Although these statements were not holdings in Thermtron, in which the district court's remand was based on a factor not encompassed by § 1447(c) and hence was found reviewable, see 423 U.S. at 344-45, 96 S.Ct. 584, the principle that a remand pursuant to subsection (c) is unreviewable was squarely applied in Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U.S. 723, 97 S.Ct. 1439, 52 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977). In Gravitt, the action had been removed to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship and had been remanded by the district court on the ground that diversity was not complete. Although the court of appeals viewed the district court's finding of incomplete diversity as erroneous and therefore granted mandamus, ordering the district court to vacate the remand order, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, stating that the district court's remand on the ground of lack of diversity jurisdiction was plainly within the bounds of § 1447(c) and hence was unreviewable by the Court of Appeals, by mandamus or otherwise. 430 U.S. at 723, 97 S.Ct. 1439. 53 Thermtron and Gravitt were decided under the 1964 version of § 1447, subsection (c) of which provided that [i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, the district court shall remand the case.... 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (1964). This part of subsection (c) has twice been amended, although without alteration of the court's duty to remand if there appears to be an absence of subject matter jurisdiction. In 1988, the quoted portion of the 1964 version of subsection (c) was divided into two sentences; the first dealt with procedural flaws in the removal process and limited the period within which a case may be remanded for such a flaw; the second dealt with subject matter jurisdiction and retained the requirement that a remand on the jurisdictional ground be ordered at any time before final judgment. As amended in 1988, the first sentence of subsection (c) stated that [a] motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect in removal procedure must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (1988). See generally Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 5 F.3d 642, 644 (2d Cir.1993) ( Hamilton ) (court lacks authority under this version of § 1447(c) to grant an untimely motion for remand or to remand sua sponte on the basis of a procedural defect more than 30 days after filing of the § 1446(a) removal notice), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1130, 114 S.Ct. 1100, 127 L.Ed.2d 413 (1994). The new second sentence of subsection (c), retaining the substance of the 1964 provision, stated that [i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (1988). This second sentence remains unaltered in the current version of the Code. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2000). The language of subsection (c)'s first sentence was further amended in 1996 to make it crystal clear that the 30-day limitation for a remand motion based on a procedural defect does not limit remands for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The 1996 amendment replaced the phrase any defect in removal procedure with any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction, thus arriving at the current language. Subsection (d) of § 1447, which is to be interpreted as referring to remands within the scope of subsection (c), see Thermtron, 423 U.S. at 343, 96 S.Ct. 584, has remained the same since 1964: Except with respect to certain removed civil rights cases, [a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.... 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). 54 In short, the post-1964 amendments to § 1447(c) have introduced no substantive differences in the grounds for remand; and § 1447(d), making remands on those grounds unreviewable, has remained constant. Thus, we have concluded that the principles enunciated in Thermtron and Gravitt as to the review-preclusive effect of § 1447(d) have remained controlling, see, e.g., Hamilton, 5 F.3d at 644; Spielman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 332 F.3d 116, 125 & n. 6 (2d Cir.2003) ( Spielman ), especially, see id. at 125, given the Supreme Court's reiteration in 1995, based on Thermtron, that, [a]s long as a district court's remand is based on a timely raised defect in removal procedure or on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction—the grounds for remand recognized by § 1447(c)—a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the remand order under § 1447(d), Things Remembered, 516 U.S. at 127-28, 116 S.Ct. 940. 55 Accordingly, we have consistently dismissed appeals taken under § 1291 from remand decisions where the basis of the remand was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Medisys Health Network, Inc. v. Local 348-S United Food & Commercial Workers, 337 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir.2003) ( Medisys ); Spielman, 332 F.3d at 130; Excimer Associates, Inc. v. LCA Vision, Inc., 292 F.3d 134, 139 (2d Cir.2002); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Baasch, 644 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir.1981) (insofar as the appeal [from the remand order] challenges the court's rulings that the action was not one of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States or that, even if it were, removal was untimely, the appeal must be dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even where the district court did not specify whether it remanded under ... § 1447(c) or under another statute, [if] we construe the district court's remand to have been based on a perceived lack of subject matter jurisdiction ..., the order is not reviewable on appeal. Spielman, 332 F.3d at 122 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)). 56 The provision in § 1447(d) that a district court's jurisdiction-based remand is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise encompasses attempts to appeal by means of a § 1292(b) certification and discretionary appeal. Section 1292(b) provides that 57 [w]hen a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order. 58 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In In re Bear River Drainage District, 267 F.2d 849 (10th Cir.1959) ( Bear River ), the Tenth Circuit reasoned that, 59 [w]hile the generality of § 1292(b) might seem sufficient to encompass a remand order, it does not expressly either amend or repeal § 1447(d). Repeals by implication are not favored. The intention of Congress to repeal, modify or supersede must be clear and manifest. The earlier statute, § 1447(d), applies specially to prohibit appeals from remand orders. The later statute, § 1292(b), applies generally to a civil action in which an order not otherwise appealable under this section is made. As there is no express repeal or absolute incompatibility, the presumption is that the special statute is intended to remain in force.... [B]y the enactment of § 1292(b) Congress did not intend to abandon the long established policy expressed in § 1447(d). 60 267 F.2d at 851 (footnotes omitted). 61 Other courts of appeals that have opined on the availability of review pursuant to § 1292(b) in light of the prohibition against review stated in § 1447(d) have reached the same conclusion. In Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 153 F.3d 124 (3d Cir.1998) ( Feidt ), the Third Circuit overruled its motions panel's prior grant of permission for a § 1292(b) appeal of a jurisdiction-based remand order and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, stating in part as follows: 62 Section 1447(d) prohibits review of a particular type of district court order, namely a remand order under section 1447(c), whereas section 1292(b) is a more general grant of appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the jurisdictional bar of section 1447(d) trumps the power to grant leave to appeal in section 1292(b). 63 153 F.3d at 130. See also Krangel v. General Dynamics Corp., 968 F.2d 914, 915-16 (9th Cir.1992) (denying petition for leave to appeal jurisdiction-based remand order certified pursuant to § 1292(b)); Ray v. American National Red Cross, 921 F.2d 324, 325-26 (D.C.Cir.1990) (denying permission to appeal where the district court had certified a subject matter jurisdiction question under § 1292(b) and had refrained from actually entering a remand order in an attempt to avoid the [§ 1447(d)] prohibition against appeal from a remand order). 64 Although this Court has not previously issued a published opinion holding that § 1292(b) appeals are encompassed by the § 1447(d) prohibition, we have so ruled or indicated. In In re Application of Rosenthal-Block China Corporation, 278 F.2d 713 (2d Cir.1960), we denied a motion to stay a jurisdiction-based remand order. Our rationale was that even if a stay order is not itself within the prohibition of § 1447(d), the granting of such a stay would squarely conflict with the policy of that section, which has been furthered not only by appellate courts' refusals to entertain a mandamus petition or an appeal from such a remand order, but also by their refusal ... to allow appeal under the interlocutory appeals statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), from such an order. 278 F.2d at 714 (citing Bear River, 267 F.2d 849). And without a written opinion, we denied a petition for leave to appeal a jurisdiction-based remand order, certified by the district court under § 1292(b) in Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., 781 F.Supp. 934, 952-53 (E.D.N.Y.1992), see No. 92-8008 (2d Cir. May 8, 1992). See generally Spielman, 332 F.3d at 132 n. 4 (Newman, J., concurring) ([a]n attempt to obtain review by certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of a ruling remanding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction has been rejected by this Court on the authority of Thermtron [in] Ryan ); Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co., 149 F.3d 387, 396 (5th Cir.1998) ([T]he issue decided by the [district] court in Ryan —that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction ... —was never reviewed by the Second Circuit. Because it was a remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), the court of appeals held itself without jurisdiction to review the decision.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1034, 119 S.Ct. 1286, 143 L.Ed.2d 378 (1999). 65 In the present case, it is clear that the district court's decision whether to remand or retain, in whole or in part, the 35 cases then pending before it hinged on its conclusion as to the existence of federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., 270 F.Supp.2d at 380 (Those plaintiffs bringing claims only for exposures after September 29, 2001 or at sites other than the World Trade Center do not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction and their cases will be remanded.). In deliberating on the remand motions, the court considered whether defendants had established complete pre-emption, as a prerequisite for federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 366 (internal quotation marks omitted). In eventually deciding that remands were required in cases alleging injuries suffered only after September 29 or at locations other than the WTC site, but not in those alleging injuries suffered at that site on or before that date, the court stated, inter alia, that [t]hese differences affect the nature of the claims presented to me and the jurisdictional determination I must make, id. at 372; it h[e]ld that September 29, 2001 is a proper demarcation point and the World Trade Center site is a proper geographical limitation for considering federal jurisdiction, id. at 374; and it ultimately ruled 66 that the claims of plaintiffs alleging respiratory injuries caused by exposure to contaminants in the demolition and clean-up efforts at the World Trade Center site, up to and including September 29, 2001, arise out of, result from, and are related to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes, are governed by federal law, and are exclusively within the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to section 408 of the Act. Claims arising from exposure after September 29, 2001, or at sites other than the World Trade Center, must be remanded to the New York Supreme Court, unless an independent ground of federal jurisdiction exists. 67 270 F.Supp.2d at 379. See also id. at 380 (instructing counsel [to] sever the cases appropriately where some plaintiffs are subject to federal jurisdiction and some plaintiffs are not). 68 And consistently with its focus on lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the basis for its remands, the district court stated its rationale for granting certification under § 1292(b) as follows: 69 The scope of federal jurisdiction in these cases involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. An immediate appeal also may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, for it will resolve the basic question of jurisdiction and thereby avoid uncertainty as to the binding effect of determinations and potential duplication of proceedings. 70 270 F.Supp.2d at 381. 71 Accordingly, although the court did not, in the main body of its opinion, mention § 1447(c) in haec verba, it is abundantly clear that the ground of the remands was lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a matter explicitly within the scope of § 1447(c). And indeed, as to a number of cases whose claims were not entirely clear in terms of temporal or geographic scope, the court stated that [f]urther proceedings are necessary to determine if they also should be remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).  270 F.Supp.2d at 380 (emphases added). We thus view the district court's order for remands as falling squarely within § 1447(d)'s prohibition against appellate review. 72 In support of their contention that, notwithstanding § 1447(d), the remands ordered here should be appealable as final collateral orders pursuant to § 1291 because they conclusively determine[ ] that a state court would decide the merits of the underlying dispute (Port Authority and WTC Properties brief on appeal at 7 (internal quotation marks omitted); see City brief on appeal at 2), defendants rely principally on language in this Court's decision in Minot, 13 F.3d at 593, and the Fourth Circuit's decision in In re CSX Transportation, Inc., 151 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir.) ( In re CSX ), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1019, 119 S.Ct. 547, 142 L.Ed.2d 455 (1998). Leaving aside the fact that such a rationale for appellate jurisdiction would entirely eviscerate § 1447(d), given that the state court is left to decide the merits of the underlying dispute in every case that is remanded to it because of improper removal or lack of jurisdiction, Minot is simply inapplicable, for the remand order found reviewable in that case was not based on the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, Minot involved a remand based on abstention. See 13 F.3d at 592 (section 1447(d) d[id] not bar appellate review because the District Court invoked abstention doctrines, rather than a jurisdictional defect, to justify its remand). 73 The City's reliance on In re CSX for the proposition that the present remand order is appealable under § 1291 on the ground that the remands would vest the state courts with final authority to determine the scope of a federal remedy (City brief on appeal at 34), is no more apt, for in In re CSX too the remand was on a basis other than lack of jurisdiction. The statute on which the In re CSX plaintiff based his claim conferred concurrent state and federal jurisdiction; thus, the court of appeals noted that the district court could not [have] rule[d] ... under § 1447(c) that it was without jurisdiction, 151 F.3d at 167 (emphasis added). 74 Defendants also contend that the remand order here should be reviewable on the ground that the district court made a merits-based decision because, in exploring ATSSSA, it made a final determination on the issue of the scope of the Act's liability cap under section 408(a)(1). (Port Authority and WTC Properties reply brief on appeal at 15; see also City brief on appeal at 34 n.7.) We disagree. The district court did not undertake to decide any merits questions independently of its need to determine whether it had jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims; it touched on the liability cap solely as part of its analysis of the extent of ATSSSA's preemptive effect, an essential step in the determination of whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. We have noted that when such determinations are needed in order to assess jurisdiction, they do not create an independent basis for appellate review of the remand order, see, e.g., Medisys, 337 F.3d at 122-23; Spielman, 332 F.3d at 129-30, and that in any event, they would not have preclusive effect in subsequent state-court proceedings, see Medisys, 337 F.3d at 124. 75 Finally, we find no merit in defendants' contention that we should entertain their appeals pursuant to § 1292(b). The City's reliance on In re TMI Litigation Cases Consolidated II, 940 F.2d 832 (3d Cir.1991) ( TMI ), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 906, 112 S.Ct. 1262, 117 L.Ed.2d 491 (1992), for the proposition that § 1292(b) appeals have been permitted where the [remand] order raises significant, unsettled questions of federal jurisdiction even where the remand order is based on an assessment of subject matter jurisdiction (City brief on appeal at 33) mischaracterizes that case and misapprehends the law. The decision of the district court in TMI was not based on any normal assessment of subject matter jurisdiction ( id. ); and what the Third Circuit in TMI described as unsettled was not a jurisdictional question but rather a constitutional question, TMI, 940 F.2d at 848. The statute at issue in TMI clearly conferred subject matter jurisdiction, and the district court did not rule to the contrary. Rather, the district court based the remand on its ruling that the statute—which was intended to (and did) confer federal jurisdiction—was beyond Congress's power and hence was unconstitutional. Thus, the court of appeals in TMI stated that 76 the subject matter jurisdictional inquiry contemplated by section 1447(c) is limited to the question of whether Congress intended that the types of actions at issue be subject to removal. The question before us is not whether Congress intended that [these] actions be subject to removal but whether the Constitution requires that the clear removal provisions ... be invalidated. 77 940 F.2d at 846 (emphasis added). The TMI court stated that it had granted permission to appeal pursuant to § 1292(b) [b]ecause [it was] convinced that the bar of section 1447(d) was not intended to preclude appellate consideration of a section 1292(b) certified question concerning the constitutionality of an Act of Congress. 940 F.2d at 836. The Third Circuit has subsequently emphasized that it views its TMI decision on the availability of § 1292(b) review as limited to remands premised on a federal statute's unconstitutionality and as leaving undisturbed the principle that a routine jurisdictional inquiry into the satisfaction of the removal requirements is unreviewable. Feidt, 153 F.3d at 129 n. 5. 78 In the present case, there was no constitutional issue, and we see no support in TMI, or any other case, for the City's contention that a jurisdiction-based remand is reviewable on the basis that it involved novel or important jurisdictional questions. Given the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 1447(d) as barring review even where the remand order might be deemed erroneous by an appellate court, Thermtron, 423 U.S. at 351, 96 S.Ct. 584 (emphasis added), review is barred a fortiori where the order raises questions that are merely significant or unsettled. 79 Nor is there any merit in the City's reliance on the proposition that  [t]wo local district courts, identifying a need for review of important, unsettled questions of federal jurisdiction, determined that section 1447(d) did not bar review where the remand order met the requirements for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (City brief on appeal at 33 (emphases added) (citing Bank of New York v. Bank of America, 861 F.Supp. 225, 233 (S.D.N.Y.1994), and Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., 781 F.Supp. 934, 952-53 (E.D.N.Y.1992))). We note in passing that although the district courts in those cases granted § 1292(b) certifications and suggested that that section might provide an avenue for review, in neither case did the district court purport to determine that § 1447(d) did not bar an appeal pursuant to § 1292(b); nor would such a district-court determin[ation] as to appellate jurisdiction have been binding on this Court. More importantly, certification by the district court, while an essential prerequisite to an appeal under § 1292(b), is, by the terms of that section, not sufficient. A party must also obtain permission to appeal from the court of appeals, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and in neither of those cases did we grant permission to appeal. In one, the attempted appeal was withdrawn by the parties. See Bank of New York v. Bank of America, No. 94-7650 (2d Cir. July 7, 1994) (dismissing appeal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 42). And in the other, as discussed earlier, we denied leave to appeal. See Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., No. 92-8008 (2d Cir. May 8, 1992). 80 The City's characterization of our denial of leave to appeal in Ryan as inapposite on the ground that th[is] Court granted certification [ sic ] of the remand order at issue here (City reply brief on appeal at 14 n.2)—and by this Court's certification we assume the City refers to our grant of permission to appeal—is doubly flawed. First, our order granting defendants permission to appeal here was plainly not unconditional; it stated that the question of whether these remand orders are appealable at all was a question that the motions panel leave[s] to the merits panel, which would hear the plaintiffs' cross-appeals. In re WTC Disaster Site, Nos. 03-8023, etc. (2d Cir. Nov. 12, 2003). Second, even if the motions panel had not made clear that its grant of permission for defendants to appeal was provisional, such a grant would nonetheless be subject to review by the merits panel and to vacatur if permission had been granted improvidently. See, e.g., Feidt, 153 F.3d at 130 (a motions panel['s] granting leave to appeal should not bar a merits panel from examining this court's jurisdiction); cf. United States v. Ecker, 232 F.3d 348, 349 (2d Cir.2000) (motions panel's grant of reinstatement of appeal does not bar the merits panel from reviewing whether the Court has appellate jurisdiction); Rezzonico v. H & R Block, Inc., 182 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir.1999) (motions panel's denial of motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction does not bar reconsideration of that issue), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1189, 120 S.Ct. 1243, 146 L.Ed.2d 101 (2000). 81 We have considered all of defendants' arguments in support of appellate jurisdiction over their appeals and have found them to be without merit. The district court having ordered remands based on its ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction in the cases to be remanded, its remand order is made unreviewable by § 1447(d). Accordingly, we dismiss defendants' appeals.