Interlocutory Appeals of Class Certification Decisions

Interlocutory Appeals of Class Certification Decisions Writing in the November issue of the newsletter of the Class Action and Multiparty Litigation Committee, Archibald T. Reeves IV of McDowell, Knight, Roedder & Sledge, Mobile, Alabama, examines a recent 1l th Circuit opinion: In Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2000), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the llth Circuit, in a case of first impression, set forth guidelines for use in evaluating interlocutory appeals under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of district court orders granting or denying class certification. This rule, which became effective on December 1, 1998, provides: A court of appeals may in its discretion permit an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying class action certification under this rule if application is made to it within 10 days after entry of the order. An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or court of appeals so orders. The 11 th Circuit noted the scarcity of published opinions on this rule and explained that only the First and Seventh circuits have provided detailed discussions of this subject. Waste Management Holdings Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288 (lst Cir. 2000); Blair v. Equifax Check Services Inc., 181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999). Drawing heavily from these two decisions and the Advisory Committee's note accompanying Rule 23(f), the court set forth five guideposts to direct its future determinations of to grant an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f). Unfettered discretion The Advisory Committee note recognizes the unfettered discretion of circuit courts in deciding to permit such an interlocutory appeal, and the note provides that such appeals can be granted or denied on the basis of consideration that the court of appeals finds persuasive. After discussing the criteria for review enunciated by the First and Seventh Circuits, the 11 th Circuit began by emphasizing that interlocutory appeals should be granted sparingly, explaining that there are too many class actions filed each year for federal appeals courts practically to adjudicate class certification decisions on an interlocutory basis is a matter of course. The court discussed powerful case management concerns that caution against routinely granting appellate review of these in these Because district courts may alter or amend class certification orders at any time prior to a decision on the merits, the interlocutory appeal mechanism should not be a vehicle for courts of appeals to micro-manage complex class action litigation in the district courts. Interlocutory appeals could shortcircuit the district court's ability or willingness to exercise its power to reconsider its certification decisions, particularly after an interlocutory review, even in the face of changed circumstances. Finally, the court stated that allowing interlocutory review simply on the basis of the so-called fundamental or unsettled question of law sets a difficult precedent in that it would encourage a flood of Rule 23(f) petitions. The five guideposts After discussing these general principles, the court then set forth its guideposts. First: The court defined the most important guidepost as the determination of whether the district court's ruling is likely dispositive of the litigation by creating a `death knell' for either plaintiff or defendant. The prospect of irreparable harm from delaying appellate review of class certification decisions until after final judgment undoubtedly creates a compelling need for immediate review. The court explained, however, that the decision to grant interlocutory review based on this factor should be limited to cases in which the district court's ruling, as a practical matter, effectively prevents the petitioner from pursuing the litigation. …