Opinion ID: 8407290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The January 9, 2013 Decision Granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Text: Hoefer argues that the interlocutory decision' granting the motion for partial summary judgment on the false arrest claim against Eastwood is merged into the final dismissal and therefore is separately appealable. For this’ argument, Hoefer relies on West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 781 (2d Cir.1999), Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 903 F.2d 176, 178-79 (2d Cir.1990), and Allied Air Freight, Inc. v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 393 F.2d 441, 444-45 (2d Cir.1968). We are not persuaded by Hoefer’s argument and conclude that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the district coürt’s January 9, 2013 decision to grant the partial summary judgment motion. The January 9, 2013 decision remained interlocutory at the time the district court dismissed the action by means of the May 29, 2014 final order. As the record reveals, the district court did not, in the words of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “direct entry of a final judgment” |o effectuate its granting of the partial summary judgment motion. According to Rule 54(b), the granting of the partial summary judgment motion “[d]id not end the action” as to Hoefer’s false arrest claims and could'be “revised at any time” prior to entry of a final judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The district court’s May'29, 2014 opinion and order dismissing the action (like the April 23, 2013 order on which it was based) drew no distinctions among Hoefer’s claims and made no mention of the false arrest claims or the prior decision granting the motion for partial summary judgment. The only plausible construction of the May 29, 2014 final order is as a dismissal -of all claims in the action. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a) (requiring, with certain exceptions inapplicable here, that a judgment “be set out in a separate document”). We conclude that the May 29, 2014 final order, rather than entering partial summary judgment on the merits to adjudicate the false arrest claim against Eastwood, dismissed that claim for failure to seek timely reinstatement. That was the only final decision the district court reached with respect to the false arrest (and other) claims and, therefore, the only decision over which we may exercise appellate jurisdiction according to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The holding in West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. does not require a different result and instead supports our conclusion. In West, the district court dismissed-the action as a sanction for plaintiff West’s allowing spoliation of the evidence, a- dismissal this Gourt held to be an abuse of discretion. West, 167 F.3d at 781. The district court earlier had granted a partial summary judgment motion for defendants on plaintiff West’s claim for punitive damages; Although stating in dicta that .the decision on partial summary judgment “merged into the subsequent judgment of dismissal,” the West panel nevertheless held that the “decision to grant partial summary judgment ... on West’s claim for punitive damages was a non-appealable interlocutory ordei’” and that this decision, upon this Court’s vacating the final judgment of dismissal, “reverts to its original interlocutory status.” Id. The holding in Gary Plastic Packaging is not controlling on the issue before us. There, the interlocutory decision that was held to have merged into the judgment denied a motion for class certification in a class action suit. That decision affected, and led to, the outcome of the case, which was dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Gary Plastic Packaging, 903 F.2d at 179 (“Thus, we hold that for purposes of appellate review, an order denying a motion for class certification merges into a final judgment which results from the class representative’s failure to prosecute its individual claim.”). In Allied Air Freight, the outcome of the case also was dismissal from failure to prosecute. The interlocutory order for which appeal was sought hqd stayed the proceedings in district court so that the plaintiff could exhaust its administrative remedies before the Civilian Aeronautics Board, a step the district court held to be necessary before plaintiffs could proceed with their judicial antitrust action. Upon appellate review, this Court ruled the dismissal of the action to be mistaken because the district court erred in issuing the interlocutory stay order, which this Court viewed as an erroneous application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Allied Air Freight, 393 F.2d at 445-49. This Court considered the -interlocutory order being challenged to have affected the outcome of the case. See id. at 445(“If the order granting the stay was a proper order, it was equally proper to require appellant to satisfy the terms of the stay in order to proceed with the action or face dismissal for failure to prosecute, and to dismiss the action sua sponte when appellant failed to take any action.”). The appeal before us is unlike those in Gary Plastic Packaging and Allied Air Freight. Here, the district court’s decision to grant the partial summary judgment motion on the false arrest claim was unrelated to, and had no effect upon, the district court’s ultimate dismissal of the action. Therefore, that interlocutory decision could not have been part of the final, appealable decision in this case for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and is not properly before us on appeal. The question of whether an interlocutory order from which an appeal is sought affects the outcome of a case has been recognized as important to the issue of merger. See Eric J. Magnuson & David F. Herr, Federal Appeals Jurisdiction and Practice § 23 (2015 ed.) (“While a final decision is a necessary precondition of appeal under [28 U.S.C.] § 1291, the appeal brings before the court of appeals all interlocutory orders in the lawsuit that can be said to have affected the outcome.” (emphasis added)). In furtherance of the principle of finality expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1291, interlocutory decisions that did not affect the outcome should be regarded as not having merged into the final decision from which an appeal will lie. See 15A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3905.1 n.29 (2d ed.) (“ ‘Orders that could not have affected the outcome, i.e., orders not material to the judgment, are not appealable’ ” and “[a] ruling that could not have affected the judgment may be denied review for reasons parallel to harmless error reasoning.)” (quoting Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 93 F.3d 529, 540 (9th Cir.1996)). In summary, because the district court’s interlocutory decision granting the partial summary judgment motion never ripened into a judgment and had no effect on the outcome of the case, we conclude that this order did not merge into the final decision to dismiss the action and is not appealable. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the grant, of the partial summary judgment motion on the merits». Because we are vacating the district court’s final order dismissing all claims, the district court’s decision to grant , the partial summary, judgment motion on,the false arrest claim against Eastwood reverts to its previous interlocutory status.- See. West, 167 F.3d at 781. We reach no decision on whether that false arrest claim has merit, which on remand is an issue for final adjudication by the district court.