Court Opinion

ID: 9962097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 19:01:20.299468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:55.017100
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11402   Document: 58-1    Date Filed: 04/22/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-11402
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
       __________________________________________
       MICHAEL C. KAUFMAN,
       MARY JACKSON ROBINSON,
       DIANA MYERS,
       CHERYL BUTLER-ADAMS,
       DEBRAH HENRY, et al.,
                                                 Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       FCA US LLC,
       GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,
       DAIMLER AG,
USCA11 Case: 23-11402      Document: 58-1       Date Filed: 04/22/2024     Page: 2 of 7

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11402

       MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
       GENERAL MOTORS HOLDING LLC, et al.,

                                                      Defendants-Appellees,

       INFLATION SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

                                                                 Defendants.

                            ____________________

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:15-md-02599-FAM
                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal from multi-district litigation proceedings arises
       from four notices of appeal filed after the district court certified the
       dismissal of certain claims as an immediately appealable judgment
       under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The notices of appeal were filed by
       four groups of plaintiffs who are a subset of the plaintiffs who filed
       three consolidated class action complaints in March 2018 in the
       multi-district litigation proceedings, which we refer to as the
       “Whitaker,” “Boyd,” and “Puhalla” complaints. The Whitaker
USCA11 Case: 23-11402       Document: 58-1      Date Filed: 04/22/2024      Page: 3 of 7

       23-11402                Opinion of the Court                           3

       complaint was filed against General Motors LLC, General Motors
       Company, and General Motors Holdings LLC (collectively, “the
       GM Defendants”). The Boyd complaint was filed against FCA US
       LLC (“FCA,” and also referred to as “New Chrysler”). The Puhalla
       complaint was filed against Daimler Aktiengesellschaft (“Daimler,”
       and also referred to as “Daimler AG”), Mercedes Benz USA
       (“MBUSA”), and several other defendants not parties to this appeal.
       Each complaint generally alleged that the named plaintiffs, and var-
       ious nationwide and state classes they represented or sought to rep-
       resent, suffered economic injury, under the laws of about 30 differ-
       ent states, because the defendant car manufacturers knowingly
       sold them vehicles with defective airbags.
               The four notices of appeal collectively seek review of four
       district court orders: (1) a June 21, 2019, order that, in relevant part,
       dismissed all claims against Daimler for lack of personal jurisdic-
       tion; (2) a May 6, 2021, order that denied a motion for clarification
       in which the Puhalla plaintiffs had sought to amend their personal
       jurisdiction allegations concerning Daimler; (3) a November 10,
       2022, order that partially granted defendants’ motions for summary
       judgment and dismissed all claims brought under the laws of 14
       specific states; and (4) the March 30, 2023, order that granted plain-
       tiffs’ motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) and entered a
       partial final judgment in favor of Daimler on all claims against it
       and in favor of the other appellees on all claims under the same 14
       states’ laws.
USCA11 Case: 23-11402      Document: 58-1       Date Filed: 04/22/2024      Page: 4 of 7

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   23-11402

               On appeal, we issued a jurisdictional question asking the par-
       ties to address whether the district court properly certified an im-
       mediately appealable judgment under Rule 54(b). Upon review of
       the record and the parties’ responses, we conclude that the Rule
       54(b) certification was improper, and therefore we lack jurisdiction
       over the appeal.
              We generally only have jurisdiction to review district court
       orders or judgments that constitute “final decisions.” 28 U.S.C.
       § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327
       (11th Cir. 2000). But an exception to the finality requirement arises
       under Rule 54(b), which permits a district court to certify as “final,”
       and therefore immediately appealable, a judgment resolving fewer
       than all the claims in an action. Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v.
       Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012).
               However, the district court may only issue that certification
       if it “expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.”
       Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also Lex Tex Ltd. v. Unifi, Inc. (In re Yarn
       Processing Pat. Validity Litig.), 680 F.2d 1338, 1338-40 (11th Cir. 1982)
       (stating that Rule 54(b) requires both an express determination of
       no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judg-
       ment, and dismissing appeals from district court orders dismissing
       third-party complaints where the district court entered judgment
       but made no determination about delay). A district court may ex-
       pressly determine there is no just reason for delay by granting a
       Rule 54(b) motion that represents that there is no just reason for
       delay. See Denson v. United States, 574 F.3d 1318, 1335 n.52 (11th
USCA11 Case: 23-11402      Document: 58-1      Date Filed: 04/22/2024     Page: 5 of 7

       23-11402               Opinion of the Court                          5

       Cir. 2009) (rejecting argument that district court failed to make ex-
       press determination of no just reason for delay because the Rule
       54(b) motion asserted there was no just cause for delay and “the
       court accepted [that] representation in granting the motion as
       framed,” notwithstanding that the court’s order “failed to contain
       the magic words, ‘no just reason for delay’”).
              If a district court makes a Rule 54(b) certification, we must
       consider whether the certification “fit[s] within the scope of the
       rule,” for only a proper certification can provide this Court with
       jurisdiction. Lloyd Noland Found., Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp., 483
       F.3d 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2007). Thus, we are obligated to review
       the propriety of Rule 54(b) certifications sua sponte when there is
       no other basis for appellate jurisdiction. See Scott v. Advanced Pharm.
       Consultants, Inc., 84 F.4th 952, 958, 962 (11th Cir. 2023).
               A district court “must follow a two-step analysis” in certify-
       ing a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b). Lloyd Noland Found.,
       Inc., 483 F.3d at 777. First, it must conclude that the “final judg-
       ment” it is entering is both “final” and a “judgment.” Id. Second,
       it must determine that there is no just reason for delay. Id. We can
       dismiss an appeal because the district court failed to satisfy one of
       Rule 54(b)’s requirements without addressing the other require-
       ment. Peden v. Stephens, 50 F.4th 972, 978 (11th Cir. 2022).
              We ordinarily will review for abuse of discretion the district
       court’s determination that there is no just reason for delay in certi-
       fying a partial final judgment. Scott, 84 F.4th at 959. But this stand-
       ard of review requires that the district court “clearly and cogently
USCA11 Case: 23-11402      Document: 58-1      Date Filed: 04/22/2024     Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11402

       articulate[d] its reasoning.” Id. (quotation marks and brackets
       omitted). When the district court fails to explain its “no just reason
       for delay” determination, we do not defer to the determination and
       instead will dismiss the appeal unless it presents the rare circum-
       stance where obvious reasons warranted the Rule 54(b) certifica-
       tion. Id. at 959, 962.
               Here, the district court made a determination that there was
       no just reason for delay by granting the plaintiffs’ motion, but it
       provided no explanation of its reasoning to which we can defer. See
       id.; Denson, 574 F.3d at 1335 n.52. And no obvious reasons warrant
       Rule 54(b) certification here. The below proceedings have substan-
       tially progressed: discovery is complete, and a relatively small num-
       ber of the total claims remain pending. See Peden, 50 F.4th at 978-79
       (explaining that special circumstances that can warrant Rule 54(b)
       certification may be present where the proceedings are at an early
       stage). Given the later stage of the proceedings, an immediate ap-
       peal is unlikely to meaningfully streamline the district court pro-
       ceedings. See id. (explaining that Rule 54(b) certification is more
       likely to be warranted where an immediate appeal makes the re-
       maining litigation substantially more efficient). Furthermore, an
       interlocutory appeal could require multiple panels of this Court to
       review the immense district court docket, including two separate
       reviews of factually similar claims. Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd.
       of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 167 (11th Cir. 1997) (providing that adjudi-
       cating claims based on the same, or overlapping, operative facts in
       separate appeals is wasteful of judicial resources).
USCA11 Case: 23-11402      Document: 58-1     Date Filed: 04/22/2024    Page: 7 of 7

       23-11402               Opinion of the Court                        7

              Moreover, the appellants have not identified a pressing need
       for an immediate appeal. For instance, their argument that an im-
       mediate appeal could facilitate settlement appears speculative. And
       their argument that an immediate appeal could avoid inefficiency
       by allowing for appellate review before the separate actions in the
       below proceedings may be transferred to their originating district
       courts in other circuits can be said of most multidistrict litigation
       cases. Given the procedural posture of this case and the lack of a
       pressing need for an immediate appeal, we conclude that there are
       no “obvious reasons” supporting the district court’s determination
       that there was no just reason for delay. Thus, the Rule 54(b) certi-
       fication was improper, and because the appeal is not otherwise
       taken from a final or appealable order, it must be dismissed.
               Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion.