Opinion ID: 6498714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: NNPC’s standing to press an appeal

Text: Although NNPC prevailed on the merits in the district court, it has filed a crossappeal in which it challenges the court’s threshold determinations that the court had personal jurisdiction over NNPC and that forum non conveniens did not compel dismissal. We turn first to examining whether NNPC has Article III standing to 16 challenge those aspects of the district court’s decision, because, if not, we would lack jurisdiction over the cross-appeal. To establish standing to challenge a district court ruling, “a party must be aggrieved by the judicial action.” Great Am. Audio Corp. v. Metacom, Inc., 938 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1991). In some cases, “a party who has prevailed on the merits may appeal from an adverse ruling collateral to the judgment on the merits so long as that party retains a stake in the appeal satisfying the requirements of Art. III.” Tr. for Certificate Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortg. Invs., Inc. Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-C1, ex rel. Orix Capital Mkts., LLC v. Love Funding Corp., 496 F.3d 171, 173 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted); see ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 894 F.3d 490, 494 (2d Cir. 2018) (explaining that a prevailing party may have appellate standing when it is aggrieved “by some aspect of the trial court’s judgment or decree” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We have treated at least one cross-appeal by a prevailing party as viable when a decision of the appeal “revive[d] the action against the appellees.” Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 204 F.3d 326, 341 n.7 (2d Cir. 2000) (Sotomayor, J.). Cf. Allstate Ins. Co. v. A.A. McNamara & Sons, Inc., 1 F.3d 133, 134 (2d Cir. 1993) (dismissing prevailing party’s cross-appeal for lack of standing where judgment in that party’s favor was affirmed). In such circumstances, the realization of the risk that the party otherwise prevailing “might become aggrieved upon reversal on the direct appeal” suffices to establish standing. Love Funding, 496 F.3d at 174 (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying that approach here, we find that NNPC has established standing as to its cross-appeal. Our ruling on the merits revives Esso’s petition against NNPC (albeit only in part) and risks an adverse judgment for NNPC on remand. If the district court was incorrect about either the personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens arguments advanced below by NNPC, a ruling in NNPC’s favor on cross-appeal could eliminate 17 that risk. NNPC therefore has a sufficient stake in these threshold determinations to establish standing for its cross-appeal. 11 Because NNPC’s arguments on cross-appeal concern whether the district court erred in entertaining this dispute more generally, we address those arguments before turning to the merits of Esso’s appeal.