Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
17. Should the appellate court grant the business's motion to dismiss the appeal?
The man then filed a notice of appeal from the federal district court's civil contempt order in the federal appellate court located in the same territory as the federal district court. The business then moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
A man filed suit against a business in state court alleging negligence and violations of federal employment law. The man's suit was properly removed to the federal district court under federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. While the suit was pending, the federal district court held the man in civil contempt for violating a protective order that had been put in place as a safeguard against the reveal of confidential information. Following the contempt citation, the federal district court dismissed the federal employment law claim against the business and remanded the negligence claim to the state court from which the claims were initially removed.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Remand is considered a final order because it effectively puts the litigants out of court, with the federal district court distancing itself from the case entirely by surrendering jurisdiction.
Although the general rule is that remand orders cannot be appealed because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction, there are exceptions. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the discretionary choice of a federal district court not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is not a remand based on lack of jurisdiction but rather a remand based on discretion. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1862 (2009).
A is correct. The appellate court should not grant the business's motion to dismiss because the remand is considered a final order, rendering appellate jurisdiction proper. The state law claim came into federal court through supplemental jurisdiction and attached to the federal claim. The federal court then issued the civil contempt citation before dismissing the federal claim. Then, in exercising its discretion, the federal court remanded the remaining state claim to state court.
This remand amounted to a final order because it was discretionary, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held that discretionary remands may be reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. Therefore, the man's appeal is based upon the entry of a final order (the remand), and the appellate court can address the propriety of the contempt order.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct result with incorrect legal reasoning. Although the appellate court should deny the motion to dismiss, it is not because civil contempt citations are immediately appealable. The rule is that criminal contempt citations are immediately appealable.
Moreover, even if it were true that civil contempt citations are immediately appealable, this appeal would be untimely and thus not within appellate jurisdiction. As stated above, the finality of the remand allows the appellate court to exercise jurisdiction.
C is incorrect. It is true that an order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed typically is not reviewable on appeal. However, § 1447(d) does not preclude the appeal of discretionary remands such as this; rather, it precludes review of remands for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or defects in the removal procedure. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1862 (2009).
D is incorrect. The district court's remand of the state law claim is considered a final judgment for purposes of establishing appellate jurisdiction, given that the civil contempt order under § 1291 effectively puts the case out of federal court.