Court Opinion

ID: 9585301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:58:49.575634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:07.334703
License: Public Domain

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The appellant, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, invokes our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which authorizes review of “final decisions” of the district courts, including those arising in bankruptcy. See Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 252-53, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). We are obliged to consider jurisdictional issues sua sponte, even if they are conceded or unnoticed by the parties. Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir. 1991). A party may not take an appeal under § 1291 until there has been a decision by the district court that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (internal quotations omitted). A decision that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims, or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, is not a final decision from which an appeal may be taken under § 1291. In re Russell, 957 F.2d 534, 535 (8th Cir.1992); Bullock v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., 817 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir.1987); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. *63254(b).9 Having reviewed the complex history of this case, I conclude that the district court has not resolved all the claims in the consolidated adversary complaints, and that the appeal must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
This case began with the filing of two adversary complaints in the bankruptcy court. One complaint was filed by the Trustee, Brian F. Leonard, on behalf of Miller & Schroeder’s bankruptcy estate, against Dorsey. It has been labeled the Trustee complaint. The second complaint was filed by Bremer Business Finance Corporation, joined by the Trustee, also against Dorsey. It has been called the Bremer complaint. As the majority explains, the Bremer complaint included a claim by the Trustee “for indemnity and contribution against Dorsey to offset any monies that Bremer might recover in its claims against the estate.” Ante, at 611; Dorsey App. A-99. This claim has not been adjudicated by the district court.
The bankruptcy court first addressed the Trustee’s claim for indemnity and contribution in its decision of August 28, 2006. In re SRC Holding Corp., 352 B.R. 103 (Bankr.D.Minn.2006). After concluding earlier in its opinion that Bremer could recover directly from Dorsey for legal malpractice based on Dorsey’s conduct prior to the closing of the St. Regis II loan, the bankruptcy court declared that the Trustee’s claim for indemnity and contribution from Dorsey was moot: “[Hjaving decided that Bremer may recover directly from Dorsey, probably resulting in the elimination of Bremer’s claim against the estate, the Trustee does not require contribution or indemnity from Dorsey making the Trustee’s claim moot.” 352 B.R. at 182.
When Dorsey objected to the bankruptcy court’s report and recommendation, however, the district court concluded that Bremer did not establish a direct attorney-client relationship with Dorsey until after the closing of the loan, and that Bremer could not recover directly from Dorsey based on pre-closing negligence. The district court’s order of April 6, 2007, which resolved the objections to the report and recommendation, did not analyze the Trustee’s claim for indemnity and contribution. See In re SRC Holding Corp., 364 B.R. 1 (D.Minn.2007). In response to Bremer’s motion to alter or amend judgment, however, the district court clarified that “the Trustee’s claim for indemnification and/or contribution is no longer moot.” In re SRC Holding Corp., No. 06-3962, 2007 WL 1464385, at *1 (D.Minn. May 15, 2007). The district court explained:
Although there is no analysis as to the bankruptcy court’s recommendation regarding the Trustee’s indemnification and/or contribution claim in the Court’s opinion, the Court did not “adopt” the *633bankruptcy court’s recommendation to dismiss the claim as moot. The bankruptcy court’s conclusions were adopted only “to the extent they [were] not inconsistent” with the Court’s Opinion. Here, the bankruptcy[] court’s conclusion to dismiss the claim as moot was inconsistent with the Court’s Opinion. The Court found that Bremer was not entitled to recover its investment loss directly from Dorsey, which is contrary to the very basis for the bankruptcy court’s recommendation to dismiss the Trustee’s indemnity/contribution claim as moot. Therefore, because the Court found the way that it did, it is implied in the April 6, 2007 Order that the indemnity/contribution claim is no longer moot.
Id. at *4 (emphases added).
The district court’s order also made clear that the Trustee’s claim for indemnity and contribution was not resolved. The court observed that “the record before the Court is not complete as to the Trustee’s claims for indemnification and/or contribution,” and that “[n]o court has tried the issues of Miller & Schroeder’s liability to Bremer and Dorsey’s liability for contribution or indemnity to the Trustee.” Id. at *1. The court acknowledged that “dicta” in its April 6 order noted “some evidence that would have supported finding Dorsey’s liability to Miller & Schroeder (or the'Trustee),” but explained that “such liability was not before this Court and this Court did not conclusively decide it.” Id. The court said that it “simply did not address the claim [for indemnity and contribution] because the claim was not properly presented to the Court and the Court could not address the claim because the record is not complete to determine the claim.” Id. at *4 (emphases added). The court thus “decline[d] to address the merits of the Trustee’s contribution/indemnification claims.” Id. at *5.
In summary, the bankruptcy court recommended that the claim for indemnification and contribution be dismissed as moot. The district court’s order of April 6, 2007, did not adopt the recommendation to dismiss the claim as moot, but did not otherwise address the claim on the merits. The district court’s order of May 15, 2007, denied a motion to alter or amend judgment, and thus left the April 6 order intact. As a result, the Trustee’s claim for indemnification and contribution was not dismissed; it is still unresolved and pending in the district court.
The majority acknowledges that the district court did not adopt the bankruptcy court’s recommendation to dismiss the claim as moot. Given that Federal Bankruptcy Rule 9033(d) mirrors 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), ante, at 619-20, it is clear that the district court had authority to reject the bankruptcy court’s recommendation, whether or not Bremer or the Trustee filed a contingent objection. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1986) (“[W]hile [28 U.S.C. § 636(b) ] does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.”); Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”); Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 81-82 (7th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] should be read as permitting modifications and de novo determinations by the district judge at all times but mandating de novo determinations when objections are raised.”). No amendment or alteration of the district court’s April 6 order and judgment was necessary to revive the *634claim for indemnity and contribution, because it was “implied in the April 6, 2007 Order that the indemnity/contribution claim is no longer moot.” 2007 WL 1464385, at *4.
Although the district court rejected the only basis on which the bankruptcy court recommended dismissal of the indemnity/contribution claim, the majority asserts that the district court nonetheless dismissed the claim “without discussion.” Ante, at 623. The majority theorizes that the district court “accepted the bankruptcy court’s recommendation that the indemnity and contribution claim be dismissed, without discussion, because none of the parties objected to the recommendation.” Id. The flaw in this analysis is that the bankruptcy court’s recommendation to dismiss the claim cannot be separated from the court’s rationale for recommending dismissal. The bankruptcy court recommended that the claim be dismissed as moot; the district court declined to adopt that recommendation, because it was inconsistent with the district court’s opinion. The bankruptcy court did not recommend alternatively that the indemnity/contribution claim be dismissed “without discussion,” on the merits, or for any other reason. Once the district court rejected the bankruptcy court’s recommendation to dismiss the claim as moot, there was no remaining recommendation of dismissal to be adopted. The district court’s adoption of those portions of the bankruptcy court’s recommendation that were not inconsistent with the district court’s opinion did not silently dismiss the indemnity/contribution claim on grounds never recommended by the bankruptcy court or stated by the district court. Cf. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir.1983) (“It does not follow ... that the absence of objection relieves the district court of its obligation to act judicially, to decide for itself whether the Magistrate’s report is correct.”).
In its order of May 15, the district court cited the absence of a “contingent objection” by Bremer or the Trustee, and the doctrine of “waiver,” to explain why it refused to address the merits of the unresolved claim for indemnity and contribution for the first time on a motion to alter or amend judgment. But this discussion does not establish that the district court dismissed the indemnity/contribution claim on April 6, and the May 15 order never states that the claim was dismissed. The court denied Bremer’s motion to alter or amend judgment “to the extent Bremer [was] asking [the] Court to make findings as to that claim,” 2007 WL 1464385, at *1 (emphasis added), citing the fact that neither Bremer nor the Trustee had raised “a contingent objection” asserting that “the indemnification and/or contribution claims would need to be addressed,” that is, on the merits. Id. at *3. The district court’s refusal to address the merits of the claim in that posture, however, does not constitute a dismissal of a claim that the court declared was no longer moot. The court simply denied a motion to alter or amend judgment, and that denial did not function to dismiss a claim that was not previously dismissed by the court’s judgment of April 6, 2007.
The majority also contends that the district court “explained that, even if Bremer and the Trustee had not waived their right to review of the indemnity and contribution claim, the claim was properly dismissed because it was premature.” Ante, at 623. The district court, however, never stated that the indemnity/contribution claim was “dismissed” because it was premature. The court merely referenced the fact that the record was not complete with respect to the indemnity/contribution claim as part of its explanation for declining to *635address the merits of the claim at that time. Whether the court could have dismissed the claim as premature (or, more likely, certified the April 6 order for immediate appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) despite the outstanding claim) is irrelevant to whether the actual decision before us constitutes a final decision for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
When a district court adjudicates fewer than all claims in an action, there is no final decision that may be appealed, subject to the exceptions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1292, Rule 54(b), and the collateral order doctrine. Hope v. Klabal, 457 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir.2006). None of these exceptions applies in this case. The appeal does not involve a collateral order or one of the interlocutory orders enumerated in § 1292(a), and the district court has not certified the adjudicated claims for appeal pursuant to § 1292(b) or Rule 54(b). Accordingly, at least Dorsey’s appeal with respect to the Bremer complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.10
Our jurisdiction over Dorsey’s appeal with respect to the Trustee complaint depends on whether the two consolidated cases filed in the bankruptcy court became one action for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and appellate jurisdiction. On May 11, 2005, the bankruptcy court ordered that the two adversary proceedings involving the Bremer complaint and the Trustee complaint were “consolidated for pretrial and trial purposes only.” The circuits vary in their treatment of consolidated cases and appellate jurisdiction. As the D.C. Circuit has summarized: (1) “Some circuits hold that consolidated cases remain separate actions and no Rule 54(b) certification is needed to appeal the dismissal of any one of them;” (2) “Others treat consolidated cases as a single action, or presume that they are, allowing the presumption to be overcome in highly unusual circumstances;” and (3) “Still other *636circuits apply no hard and fast rule, but focus on the reasons for the consolidation to determine whether the actions are one or separate.” United States ex rel. Hampton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 318 F.3d 214, 216 (D.C.Cir.2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). If the consolidated cases are treated as one action, then lack of finality with respect to a claim in one of the underlying cases means that there is no appellate jurisdiction over the entire action.
Our circuit falls in the third category of circuits that have no “hard and fast rule” about the treatment of consolidated cases. Id. We have said that where cases are consolidated “for the purposes of convenience only,” such as where a district court said that consolidation was to “accommodate the convenience of the parties,” continued to refer to future filings “in these two suits,” and stated that after one complaint was dismissed that there was “still other related litigation pending with this same case number,” then the presence of an open question in one of the formerly separate suits did not preclude appeal of a final decision in the other suit. Tri-State Hotels, Inc. v. FDIC, 79 F.3d 707, 711-12 (8th Cir.1996) (internal quotations omitted); see also Grain Land Coop v. Kar Kim Farms, Inc., 199 F.3d 983, 990 n. 4 (8th Cir.1999) (asserting jurisdiction over final judgment in one of two cases where “it appeared] the cases were merged for convenience and efficiency only”). But where two actions are “really consolidated and merged into one,” Mendel v. Prod. Credit Ass’n of the Midlands, 862 F.2d 180, 182 (8th Cir.1988), or “formally merged for all purposes,” Tri-State Hotels, 79 F.3d at 711, then all claims in both of the formerly separate eases must be resolved before there is a final decision for purposes of § 1291.
Under the case-by-case approach used by this and several other circuits, I would consider the two underlying adversary actions as one consolidated action for purposes of determining appellate jurisdiction. Although the bankruptcy court implied that the consolidation was somehow limited when it consolidated the cases for “pretrial and trial purposes only,” the court offered no explanation of what other purpose might exist. Other circuits following the case-by-case approach have held that when two cases are consolidated for discovery and trial, then all claims in both cases must be resolved before the district court’s decision is final and appealable. See Alinsky v. United States, 415 F.3d 639, 642-43 (7th Cir.2005) (“Because the district court consolidated these cases for discovery and trial, we conclude that the sixty-day time period for filing a notice of appeal did not begin to run until a final judgment was entered for all four eases.”); Bergman v. City of Atlantic City, 860 F.2d 560, 566 (3d Cir.1988) (where cases were consolidated “for all purposes of discovery and trial,” an order concluding one of the consolidated cases “should not be considered final and appealable”); Ivanov-McPhee v. Wash. Nat’l Ins. Co., 719 F.2d 927, 929-30 (7th Cir.1983) (dismissing appeal of a district court order that resolved all claims in only one of two consolidated actions, where the district court did not state that cases were consolidated “for all purposes,” but the cases were consolidated for both trial and discovery purposes, and the court of appeals could not “discern any purposes of substance for which they retain separate identities”). Unlike TriState Hotels, where the district court continued to refer to “two suits” after consolidation, the district court here stated, without any suggestion of limitation, that the Bremer case was “consolidated with” the Trustee case, 364 B.R. at 24, and referred to the consolidated matter as “this case” in *637the singular. Id. at 51. Although the district court maintained separate docket sheets for the two complaints, the judgments entered in the cases were identical, with each setting forth the court’s orders regarding both the Bremer complaint and the Trustee complaint. See Ivanov-McPhee, 719 F.2d at 929 (“Apart from the maintenance of these separate docket entries, however, we can perceive no purpose for which these actions have not been treated as one.”). Under these circumstances, the consolidated cases are best viewed as a single action, and the lack of finality with respect to the Bremer complaint precludes appellate jurisdiction over an appeal with respect to the Trustee complaint as well.
Upholding the finality requirement in this case furthers the congressional policy against premature appeals and piecemeal reviews in at least one specific respect. Dorsey’s lead argument in its appeal of the district court’s decision on the Trustee complaint is that Dorsey did not commit legal malpractice. (Appellant’s Br. 31-44). Because the firm did not commit malpractice, Dorsey contends, the firm had no duty to disclose a potential malpractice claim to Miller & Schroeder, so the district court’s finding of liability for failure to make such a disclosure must be reversed. As the district court explained in its discussion of the claim for indemnity and contribution, however, that court has not resolved whether Dorsey committed malpractice. The court emphasized that the record was not complete on this question, that Dorsey’s liability for negligence was not before the court, and that the court “did not conclusively decide it.” 2007 WL 1464385, at *1. As the issue whether Dorsey committed malpractice remains to be decided with respect to a claim that is still pending in the district court, it would be premature for this court to decide it now. After a final decision on all claims, this court will have the benefit of the district court’s findings and conclusions as to whether Dorsey committed malpractice. If the district court were to conclude that Dorsey did not commit malpractice, moreover, then presumably that court could consider in the first instance the argument advanced by Dorsey in this appeal, and reconsider its previous decision, if appropriate.11
*638For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

. Although we have said that a more flexible standard of finality applies to bankruptcy appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), e.g., In re Woods Farmers Coop. Elevator Co., 983 F.2d 125, 127 (8th Cir.1993), the appellant here invokes only 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we have suggested that finality principles under § 1291 do not vary between the bankruptcy context and other civil appeals. See In re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig., 874 F.2d 576, 580 (8th Cir.1989) (citing In re Haw. Corp., 796 F.2d 1139, 1141 (9th Cir.1986)). Portions of the district court’s decision on each of the adversary complaints arose through a report and recommendation from the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), rather than as an appeal pursuant to § 158(a), so § 158(d) cannot supply appellate jurisdiction over the entire case. See Flight Transp. Corp., 874 F.2d at 580. And even where more flexible finality standards are applied under § 158(d), an order that disposes of fewer than all of the claims or parties in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding is not a final decision that may be appealed. See In re Boca Arena, Inc., 184 F.3d 1285, 1286-87 (11th Cir.1999); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7054(a).

. Even if there were a final decision, I would respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion — based on excerpts from two footnotes in the district court’s 94-page opinion (one of which expressly states that disclaimers in the Participation Agreement "play no part” in the court’s decision about Bremer’s standing) — that the holding and analysis in McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP (McIntosh II), 745 N.W.2d 538 (Minn.2008), "contrast mightily” with the analysis of the district court on the Bremer complaint. Ante, at 624. McIntosh II held that Dorsey did not represent various bank participants in connection with the loan closing, citing the facts that “there were no communications between the Bank Participants and Dorsey before closing,” that “there was no notice to Dorsey that it was expected to represent the Bank Participants,” and that "Dorsey was unable to identify the Bank Participants before closing.” 745 N.W.2d at 549. In short, ”[t]he simple fact that [the banks] would benefit from Dorsey’s services does not impose contractual liability.” Id. Consistent with McIntosh II, the district court held that Dorsey did not represent Bremer prior to the loan closing, because "the fact that Bremer would benefit from Dorsey’s work while Dorsey represented Miller & Schroeder does not, by itself, establish that Bremer was Dorsey's client.” 364 B.R. at 28.
The district court's finding that there was a direct attorney-client relationship between Bremer and Dorsey after June 2000 was based on specific underlying facts, such as a cover letter from Dorsey stating that the firm had been "retained to represent the Loan Participants,” a memorandum from a Dorsey attorney addressed to the "loan participants” and stamped “subject to attorney-client privilege,” and section 4.8 of the Participation Agreement (not discussed in McIntosh II), which authorized Miller & Schroeder to retain counsel to represent Bremer and other loan participants. 364 B.R. at 30-32. The district court did not simply conclude that "Dorsey’s representation of M & S could be imputed to Bremer,” ante, at 627, and McIntosh II does not call for reversal of the district court’s ruling in favor of Bremer. I express no view on Dorsey’s several challenges to this ruling, see Appellant’s Br. 67-75, which are not addressed by the majority.

. I am not persuaded that the Trustee appeal could be resolved on the alternative ground that Dorsey had no duty to disclose a potential malpractice claim, even where such nondisclosure violates the Minnesota ethics rules, as long as the potential claim does not "create[ ] a conflict of interest that would disqualify the lawyer from representing the client.” Ante, at 629. This argument was not raised by Dorsey in the district court or in this court. See JCB, Inc. v. Union Planters Bank, NA, 539 F.3d 862, 875 n. 8 (8th Cir.2008) ("To be reviewable, an issue must be presented in the brief with some specificity.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). That Dorsey did not criticize the bankruptcy court for "relying too heavily on the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct,” ante, at 628, is not surprising, given that Dorsey's own expert, Charles Lundberg, testified that “[t]he common law rule is the same as the ethics rule,” that “the cases from jurisdictions which have ad-2 dressed the issue have uniformly held that an attorney has a professional duty to promptly notify a current client of a lawyer’s failure to act and of a possible claim that the client may have against him,” that a lawyer has a duty to advise a current client of a potential malpractice claim that is substantial and unknown to the client, and that a failure to do so would violate the lawyer’s "duty to advise the client about all pertinent matters to his matter.” (T. Tr., Feb. 21, 2006, at 62, 107-08, 115-16) (emphasis added); see Charles E. Lundberg, Self-Reporting Malpractice or Ethics Problems, Bench & Bar of Minn., Sept. 2003, at 24; see also Perl v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 345 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Minn.1984) ("The law treats a client’s right to an attorney’s loyalty as a kind of 'absolute' right in the sense that if the attorney breaches his or her fiduciary duty to the client, the client is deemed injured even if no actual loss results.”). It is reason*638able to predict that the Supreme Court of Minnesota would regard a client’s right to be reasonably informed about a potential malpractice claim in accordance with Rule 1.4 of the Minnesota Rulés of Professional Conduct as another "absolute” right of the sort discussed in Perl. See 1 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. & W. William Hodes, The Law of Lawyering § 4.7 (3d ed.2001) (observing that the "core rules” of professional conduct, including Rule 1.4 regarding communication, "are all based on principles of fiduciary relationship and loyal service”).