Document: 459 U.S. 56 103 S.Ct. 400 74 L.Ed.2d 225 Robert C. GRIGGS and Jacqueline M. Griggsv.PROVIDENT CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY. No. 82-5082. Nov. 29, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for certiorari questions the validity of a notice appeal filed after entry District Court's judgment but while appellant's motion to alter or amend that remained pending in Court. 2 petitioners brought this civil action United States Court Eastern Pennsylvania, seeking statutory damages an alleged violation Truth Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., Regulation Z Federal Reserve Board, 12 CFR 226.1 seq. On December 24, 1980, granted petitioners' summary judgment, finding respondent's disclosure its security interests after-acquired property had been inaccurate misleading. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 503 F.Supp. 246 (E.D.Pa.1980). November 5, 1981, entered order pursuant Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 54(b) directing final be entered. 12, respondent timely 59. 19, was still pending, appeal. 23, denied judgment. Neither opinion below nor response writ indicates any further filed. 3 Appeals Third Circuit accepted jurisdiction reversed 680 F.2d 927 (CA3 1982). explained decision take as follows: 4 "The Griggses urge matter is not appealable because Rule 4(a)(4) Rules Appellate Procedure provides '[a] before disposition above motions shall have no effect.' Appellant did fail satisfy though premature subject dismissal, we generally allowed appellant proceed unless appellee can show prejudice resulting from filing notice. Tose First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 648 879, 882 n. (3d Cir.), cert. 454 893, 102 390, 70 208 (1981); Hodge Hodge, 507 87, 89 Cir.1975); accord Williams Town Okoboji, 599 238 (8th Cir.1979). See also 9 Moore's Practice ¶ 204.14 (2d ed. In our case, shown by appeal." Id., at 929 2. 5 Because analysis conflicts with decisions other Courts Appeals1 contrary language purposes 1979 Amendments Procedure, grant request leave forma pauperis their certiorari, reverse. 6 Even 1979, it understood federal district court appeals should attempt assert over case simultaneously. event jurisdictional significance—it confers on divests control those aspects involved See, e.g., Hitchmon, 587 1357 (CA5 1979). Cf. Ruby Secretary Navy, 365 385, 389 (CA9 1966) (en banc) (notice unappealable does divest jurisdiction), denied, 386 1011, 87 1357, 18 440 (1967). Under pre-1979 procedures, lacked entertain vacate, alter, Hattersley Bollt, 512 209 1975); Edmond Moore-McCormack Lines, 253 143 (CA2 1958). However, if timing reversed—if judgment—two seemingly inconsistent conclusions were held follow: retained decide motion, nonetheless considered adequate beginning process. E.g., Yaretsky Blum, 592 65, 66 1979), 450 925, 101 1379, 67 355 (CA8 1979); Alexander Aero Lodge 735, 565 1364, 1371 (CA6 1977), 436 946, 98 2849, 787 (1978); Dougherty Harper's Magazine 537 758, 762 1976); Stokes Peyton's Inc., 508 1287 Song Jook Suh Rosenberg, 437 1098 1971). Foman Davis, 371 178, 83 227, 222 (1962). But see Century Laminating, Ltd. Montgomery, 595 563 (CA10), granted, 444 897, 100 204, 62 132, dismissed, 987, 516, 417 (1979). reason theoretical inconsistency tolerable practice courts automatically inform when filed, there therefore little danger would simultaneously analyzing same 7 amended clarify both litigants' timetable courts' respective jurisdictions. new requirement "transmit forthwith" valid advanced time could begin processing App.Proc. 3(d). At time, prevent unnecessary appellate review, given express authority under 59, even 4(a)(4). If these only changes, noted suddenly taken practical significance. A broad class situations created which power modify avoided potential conflict depriving such situations. New states:2 8 "If Civil party . 59 ., all parties run denying motion. [such motion] effect. must within prescribed measured disposing provided above. No additional fees required filing." Professor Moore has aptly described post-1979 effect previously appeal: simply self-destructs." J. Moore, B. Ward & Lucas, 204.12[1], 4-65 17 Moreover, subsequent ineffective pending. 16 Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper Gressman, 3950 (1982 Supp.). position that, notwithstanding Amendments, retains discretion waive conceded defects (CA3), (1981). We disagree. merely defective; nullity. plain current rule, "shall effect"; "must filed." short, all. And all, lacks act. It well settled "mandatory jurisdictional." Browder Director, Illinois Dept. Corrections, 434 257, 264, 556, 560, 54 521 (1978).3 10 are granted. vacated remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 11 Justice MARSHALL, dissenting. Without benefit briefing argument merits, majority—in conclusory footnote—decides cannot invoke defect exercise majestic question inappropriate alternative ground lower court's exists: fact effective following denial judgment.1 event, majority's interpretation prior decisions, may grave consequences pro se litigants. minimum, allow opportunity address issues brief merits. I respectfully dissent. 13 * While majority describes appeal, fails mention actions 1981. Respondent's 30 days 23 amply satisfied content requirements 3(c). 14 4, docketed record That day, clerk sent letter counsel copy notifying them clerk's merits already respondent, due misunderstanding.2 asked advise "in writing your intention rely briefs Petn., Appendix two letters Appeals, received 15.3 first stated intended file appendix included statement comply local rule. second provided, accordance 30(b), present review designation portions rely. Copies served petitioners. circumstances viewed entirety, clearly defined rule provide "[a]n dismissed informality form title Advisory Committee Notes explain significance amendment "[I]t important right lost mistakes mere form. number decided cases so long function met paper indicating substance complied with. Cobb Lewis (CA5th, 1974) 488 41; Holley Capps 1972) 468 1366. proposed give recognition practice." (emphasis added) cited particularly instructive. There, concluded "the statement, made either evinces party's intent F.2d, 45 added). reasoned "accomplishes basic objectives requirement: (1) notify taking appeal; (2) opposing Ibid. 19 undertaken during Rule's Appeals4 party. Within containing stating precisely raised providing designations upon Similarly, they 30(b) presented. 20 specific Any conclusion exalt empty ritual common sense. As Lewis, supra, relied amending 3(c), " 'it think harking back formalistic rigorism earlier outmoded travesty justice, hold extremely simple procedure itself kind Mumbo Jumbo, failure formalistically defeats substantial rights.' 45, quoting Crump Hill, 104 36, 38 1939). 21 compelled reach discretionary thus proper Consequently, do appropriate vehicle making procedural law. II 22 warranted decline join summarily rejecting basis good cause "a may, except otherwise 26(b), suspend provisions rules particular own ." According notes, "contains general authorization relieve litigants default where manifest injustice result." Invoking 2, declines dismiss based defaults absence showing appellee. 927, ground, exercised concluding failed prejudice.5 24 two-sentence footnote notes explicitly limited states "may enlarge relevance 26(b) case. common-sense meaning recognize late Robinson, 361 220, 224, 80 282, 285, 259 (1960). 26 very deals extension time; words "Rule prohibits extending review" similar fashion, 6, based,6 discuss enlargement terms expiration date period. not—consistent mandate 26(b)—give certainly debatable whether Only bars recognition, serve limitation 25 concludes refile four prematurely, absolutely barred addressing This flies face previous declaration "too day entirely spirit technicalities." 181, 229, (1962) (discussing 73(a), predecessor (4). Bankers Trust Co. Mallis, 435 381, 387, 1117, 1121, 55 357 (1978) (per curiam ) ("the technical [imposed Procedure] mandatory 'did mislead prejudice' "). creates serious pitfalls unsophisticated reports filled post-judgment "reconsider," "vacate," "set aside," "reargue" adverse judgments. almost without exception treated motions, regardless label.7 Indeed, captioned 60(b), normally deemed motions.8 majority, becomes "nullity" Thus, approach, unwittingly invalid notices questioning which, unbeknownst them, appreciate distinction between 60(b) combined draconian application adopted require dismissal Apel Wainwright, 677 116 (CA11, 1982) (on rehearing), 82-5503. III 27 believes, not, necessary examine Appeals' least considering disposition, submit briefing, risk error necessarily increases. Valdosta-Lowndes County Hospital Authority, 668 1177, 1178 (CA11 1982); Beam Youens, 664 1275 Bolger, 633 410 1980); Jones, 669 559, 561 (dictum); Calhoun States, 647 1981); 616 1030, 1032 (CA7 1980) (dictum), 446 2972, 64 844 (1980). cf. Laser Alignment, Inc. Warlick, 32 Fed.R.Serv.2d 776 (CA4 1981). modification make clear specified post trial await [I]t undesirable granting vacate appealed from. since docketing place until transmitted, much less likely involve waste effort. e.g. (5th Cir.1975). Further, jurisdiction, embrace objections obviously preferable postpone disposed of. [pre-1979], 'termination' 'running' ambiguous 10-day limit. pendency of." Note Rules, 28 U.S.C.A. 4. purport vest unlimited Appeals. authorizes enlarging Presumably, remand "further proceedings" will consider Hollywood Motor Car Company, --- ----, 3081, 73 754 (1982) (where reverses remands instructions appeal); Department Corrections Illinois, (Court untimely appeal). Respondent early 1981 mistaken belief October Court, subsequently 54(b). Clerk's Office enters pleadings docket sheet. maintains separate correspondence relating 81-2989, sheet 81-2989 apparently reference certified transmitted along record. papers rather than 41, 1974), makes vein, 4(a)(1) "is mistakenly appeals," note notice, noted." fatal Rules. appears 3(c) 15. By date, circumstances, sensible expected return longer dispute 1967 26. 204.12 4-67 alone, see, Richerson 572 89, 93 1978) (motion reconsider judgment); Sonneblick-Goldman Corp. Norwalk, 420 858, 859 1970) Gainey Brotherhood Railway Steamship Clerks, 303 716, 718 1962) rehearing reconsideration). Sometimes characterization resulted Dove Codesco, 569 807 1978); Alley Dodge Hotel, 551 442 (CADC 1977); Sea Ranch Ass'n California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions, 1058 Woodham American Cystoscope 335 1964).

Category: 8