On Jan. 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision clarifying the appealability of a ruling in a case that has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with others in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding. Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S.Ct. 8971174 (2015).
Plaintiff Ellen Gelboim filed a class action alleging that the defendant banks violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to fix a measure of interest rates. The case was consolidated with 60 others for pretrial purposes. Although some of the other cases also contained additional claims, Gelboim's complaint raised only the single antitrust claim. The defendant banks moved to dismiss Gelboim's complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs had suffered no antitrust injury. The district court granted the motion, dismissing Gelboim's case in its entirety while those cases in the MDL presenting additional claims remained before the court. When Gelboim appealed, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on its own motion, dismissed the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction. Because the MDL was ongoing, the court ruled, there was no "final decision of the district court" as required for appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
In a decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court stated that cases consolidated for MDL pretrial proceedings do not become part of a "monolithic multidistrict 'action' created by the transfer"; rather, they "ordinarily retain their separate identities." Because the district court's dismissal had all the hallmarks of a final decision, it was appealable under § 1291. Those plaintiffs whose cases were still pending in the MDL could seek Rule 54(b) certification from the district court allowing them to appeal their antitrust claims at the same time. The Court noted that a contrary ruling, requiring Gelboim to wait until pretrial proceedings were complete for all cases, would leave Gelboim unsure of when to appeal.
The procedural rule created by this decision will inform MDL practice, an increasingly common tool for price-fixing cases and other complex litigation. But despite this decision, some uncertainty remains: the Court expressed no opinion on whether an order resolving one of multiple cases that had been consolidated for all purposes—rather than only for pretrial purposes, as was the case here—would be appealable as of right under § 1291.
The Supreme Court's decision is available here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
