Opinion ID: 2976976
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: M&C argues that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a contempt order, citing Joy & Middlebelt Sunoco, Inc. v. Fusion Oil, Inc., 179 F. App’x 301, 303 (6th Cir. 2006), for the proposition that “a civil contempt order . . . is not considered a final order in this Circuit.” In Fusion Oil, however, we next immediately quoted McAlpin v. Lexington 76 Auto Truck Stop, Inc., 229 F.3d 491, 500 (6th Cir. 2000), in which we stated that “a ‘judgment of civil contempt is not [itself] a final 12 decree,’ and therefore is not appealable in the absence of a final judgment.” McAlpin, 229 F.3d at 500 (alteration in original, emphasis added) (quoting Blaylock v. Cheker Oil Co., 547 F.2d 962, 965 (6th Cir. 1976)); see also United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1037 n.7 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing McAlpin and stating that “the post-judgment contempt order entered by the district court in this case is considered final and reviewable”). This appeal involves a final judgment, and, as we noted in McAlpin, the policy of preventing piecemeal litigation is served when a final judgment exists because the concern that the appeal of the contempt order represents an interlocutory order is not present. Id. M&C misreads Fusion Oil and McAlpin, and both cases demonstrate that we have jurisdiction in this case to hear Behr’s appeal of the district court’s order finding it in contempt.