Clausen v. Storage Tank Development Corp.
21 F.3d 1181 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2), a premature notice of appeal filed after a nonfinal decision that resolves some, but not all, claims in a case is not a fatal jurisdictional defect and will be treated as effective upon the district court's subsequent entry of a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
Facts:
- Storage Tank Development Corp. ('Storage Tank') owned docking facilities on the Piscataqua River in New Hampshire, which were occupied and used by Sea-3, Inc. ('Sea-3').
- Sea-3 contracted with Goudreau Construction Corp. ('Goudreau') to perform improvement work on a concrete mooring cell, known as Cell Three.
- On February 5, 1989, Goudreau hired Erie Clausen as a pile driver for the project.
- On February 6, 1989, his first day on the job, it was snowing and about two inches of snow had accumulated on the dock.
- While walking on a ramp connecting a walkway-pier to Cell Three, Clausen slipped on a sheet of ice concealed by the snow, fell, and seriously injured his back.
Procedural Posture:
- Erie Clausen filed a negligence suit against Storage Tank Development Corp. and Sea-3, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
- The defendants filed third-party complaints against Clausen's employer, Goudreau Construction Corp.
- The district court severed the third-party claims for a separate trial.
- A jury in the trial of Clausen's claims returned a special verdict in his favor for $1,426,000.
- The district court entered an amended judgment holding Storage Tank and Sea-3 jointly and severally liable.
- Storage Tank (appellant) filed a notice of appeal while its third-party complaint against Goudreau was still pending and unresolved.
- The court of appeals ordered the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.
- Upon motion by Clausen (appellee), the district court certified its judgment as final under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), but Storage Tank did not file a new notice of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a premature notice of appeal, filed after a judgment that resolves some but not all claims in a lawsuit, become effective when the district court subsequently certifies that judgment as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell
Yes. A premature notice of appeal ripens and becomes effective on the date the district court enters a certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The court reasoned that while Storage Tank's notice of appeal was premature because its third-party claims were still pending, the subsequent Rule 54(b) certification cured the defect. Applying the Supreme Court's holding in FirsTier, the court found that the appealed judgment was a 'decision' that 'would be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgment.' Although a 54(b) certification requires more than a ministerial act, the decision was not 'irremediably interlocutory' like a discovery order. The certification made the otherwise complete decision on Clausen's claims final and appealable without altering its substance, thus invoking the 'savings clause' of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2). The court also rejected Storage Tank's other arguments, finding it had failed to preserve its evidentiary objections by not making contemporaneous objections at trial after its motion in limine was denied.
Analysis:
This decision provides important guidance on appellate jurisdiction, clarifying that a technical failure to file a new notice of appeal after a Rule 54(b) certification is not fatal to the appeal. It extends the 'relation forward' principle from FirsTier to situations involving multi-claim litigation, promoting judicial efficiency by allowing appeals to proceed on their merits rather than being dismissed for curable procedural errors. The case also serves as a strong reminder for trial lawyers that a denied motion in limine does not preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal; a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is offered at trial is required.
