Categories: Civil Procedure Date: May 7, 2014 Title: Nissim Corp. v. ClearPlay, Inc.: Conceding a Court's Jurisdictional Withdraw Not Subject to Appellate Review
|Title||Nissim Corp. v. Clearplay, Inc., 2013-1429 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14,2014) (non-precedential).|
|Issue||[Can] a party can waive review of [a] discretionary [non-jurisdictional] decision[?] [...] [Are] interlocutory rulings [...] the basis for collateral estoppel[?] |
Nissim at *3-4.
|Holding||[Appeallate courts] may only review final judgments. Because Nissim explicitly waived its right to challenge the only final judgment properly on appeal [since interlocutory rulings are not final judgments], we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Id. at *2 (text added).
|Procedural History||On May 13, 2004, Nissim Corp. sued ClearPlay, Inc. [...] for patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of contract. The parties eventually settled five days before trial, and the district court promptly dismissed Nissim's suit with prejudice on November 30, 2005. The court retained jurisdiction, however, "solely to enforce the terms of the settlment agreement entered into between the parties." |
Nissim at *2 (text omitted).
|Legal Reasoning (Newman, Moore, and Hughes)|
|[In 2007] Nissim returned to the district court and moved to enjoin ClearPlay from engaging in activities allegedly outside the scope of the settlment agreement. Although the district court issued several interlocutory rulings during the proceedings that followed, it never resolved the merits of Nissim's claims. Instead the district court withdrew its discretionary jurisdiction over the settlement agreement without further ruling on any substantive issues in the case. [...] Nissim bases its appeal on two issues the district court addressed in prior, unrelated orders denying summary judgement: (1) the district court's allegedly erroneous interpretation of the settlement agreement and (2) ClearPlay's alleged concession of noncompliance with the settlement agreement. |
Nissim at *2-3 (text omitted).
|Issue: Final Judgment Rule|
|Legal Standard: The Final Judgment Rule||The final judgement rule limits appellate review to issues that end the litigation on the merits and leave noting for the court to do but execute the judgment. An order denying summary judgment is not a final judgment. [..] Accordingly, the final judgment rule generally prohibits a party from appealing a district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment. Nissim at *3 (internal citations and quotations omitted).|
|Nissim Argument: Non-final Orders Should Be Reviewable As They May Trigger Collateral Estoppel||For at least three reasons, we find that these interlocutory rulings should not be the basis for collateral estoppel. First, ClearPlay's counsel conceded during oral argument that collateral estoppel would not apply in a related case. Thus, a court could find that this concession precludes ClearPlay from adopting a contrary position. Second, it seems unlikely that a court would find prerequisites for collateral estoppel satisfed under the circumstances. In this appeal, although the issues subject to the interlocutory rulings were raised, those rulings were not necessary to the outcome of this suit--the withdrawl of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreements. Third, even if a court were to find the prerequisites for collateral estoppel satisfied, this court's determination that the orders denying summary judgment are unreviewable on appeal should nevertheless preclude the application of collateral estoppel. |
Id. at *4-5.
|Issue: Lower Court's Discretionary Withdraw of Jurisdiction|
|Legal Standard: Court's Discretionary Withdraw of Jurisdiction||A district court's decision to withdraw discretionary jurisdiction is a final judgment, reviewable for abuse of discretion. And because it is not a jurisdictional matter a party can waive review of that discretionary decision. |
Nissim at *3 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
|Nissim Explicitly Waived Challenge of Court's Discretionary Withdraw||Nissim explicitly waived its right to challenge the district court's withdrawal of jurisdicition by stating "Nissim beleives the district court's withdrawal of jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion, but ... Nissim does not appeal that aspect of the district court's order." Accordingly, we do not disturb the district court's final order withdrawing jurisdiction. |
Id. at *4.
|Accordingly, we decline to review the district court's interlocutory orders denying summary jdugment and dismiss Nissim's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED|
Nissim at *5.
Image Attribution Statement: Michelangelo Buonarroti, “Last Judgment,” available as a public domain image, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo,_Giudizio_Universale_02.jpg (last visited May 7, 2014)(image edited).