18. Should the appellate court grant the jeweler's motion to dismiss the appeal?

The federal court system applies the final judgment rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The basic concept is that an appeal is allowed only after all the issues involved in the suit have been finally determined by the trial court. A final order is one that disposes of the whole case on its merits by rendering final judgment not only as to all the parties but as to all causes of action involved.

An order for a new trial is not considered a final judgment in the federal system. See Gospel Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 543 (1947) (finding that «for a judgment of an appellate court to be final and reviewable for this purpose, it must end the litigation by fully determining the rights of the parties, so that nothing remains to be done by the trial court. .. . Thus, where the effect of the state court's direction is to grant a new trial, the judgment will not be final»).

C is correct. The court should grant the jeweler's motion to dismiss the appeal because there is no final judgment on which to base appellate jurisdiction, given that an order for a new trial is not considered a final judgment, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

A is incorrect. There is no exception to the final judgment rule that grants appellate jurisdiction when, «but for» the order, final judgment would have been rendered. Even if the appellate court's review of the new trial order would be most efficient, this is not enough to overcome the rule requiring a final judgment absent an applicable exception.

B is incorrect. A court of appeals' determination of the parties' best interest when ruling on a motion is not enough to overcome the final judgment requirement. Moreover, even though the jeweler, like the designer, arguably has an interest in an appellate determination of whether the new trial order was an abuse of discretion, the jeweler has a greater interest in having the new trial go forward. If the jeweler wins the new trial and there is no other basis for reversal, it is highly unlikely that a court of appeals would reverse a judgment for the jeweler on the ground that it was an abuse of discretion for the initial trial judge to order a new trial.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with incorrect legal reasoning. Although the appellate court should grant the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, it is not because the new trial order does not aggrieve the designer. The designer is, in fact, aggrieved by the order granting a new trial. Even though he has not yet lost on any claim or defense, the order exposes the parties to the burdens of putting on a second trial. Nevertheless, jurisdiction is improper based on the lack of a final judgment on which to base the appeal.