Griggs et al. v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.
459 U.S. 56 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), a notice of appeal filed before the district court disposes of a timely post-judgment motion, such as a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, is a legal nullity and has no effect. A new, timely notice of appeal must be filed after the entry of the order disposing of the motion to confer jurisdiction upon the court of appeals.
Facts:
- The Griggses sued Provident Consumer Discount Co. for an alleged violation of the Truth in Lending Act.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Griggses.
- On November 5, 1981, the District Court directed that a final judgment be entered.
- On November 12, 1981, Provident Consumer Discount Co. filed a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
- On November 19, 1981, while its Rule 59 motion was still pending, Provident Consumer Discount Co. filed a notice of appeal.
- On November 23, 1981, the District Court denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment.
- Provident Consumer Discount Co. did not file a second notice of appeal after the denial of its motion.
Procedural Posture:
- The Griggses (petitioners) sued Provident Consumer Discount Co. (respondent) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the Griggses.
- Provident filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit while its own post-judgment motion was pending in the District Court.
- The Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction, reasoning that it could waive the premature filing defect because the Griggses could not show prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment in favor of Provident.
- The Griggses petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 notice of appeal filed after the entry of a district court's judgment but while a timely motion to alter or amend that judgment is pending have any legal effect to confer jurisdiction on the court of appeals?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A premature notice of appeal filed while a timely Rule 59 motion is pending is a nullity and has no effect. The plain language of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), as amended in 1979, states that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of such a motion 'shall have no effect,' and a 'new notice of appeal must be filed.' This rule is mandatory and jurisdictional, designed to prevent the district court and the court of appeals from having simultaneous control over the same judgment. The Court of Appeals has no discretion to waive this defect, as the requirement of a timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite to its jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The Court of Appeals correctly heard the appeal because the respondent's subsequent actions should have been treated as an effective notice of appeal, and in any event, the court had discretion to waive the premature filing. The respondent's letters to the Court of Appeals after the denial of the Rule 59 motion, which stated an intent to proceed and identified the issues for review, satisfied the functional requirements of a notice of appeal under Rule 3(c). Furthermore, Rule 2 grants appellate courts discretion to suspend the rules to avoid 'manifest injustice,' which should apply here to forgive a mere technical timing error where the other side was not prejudiced. The majority's strict, formalistic approach creates a trap for unwary litigants.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line, jurisdictional rule that a premature notice of appeal is not merely defective but a complete nullity. By removing discretion from the circuit courts to forgive such errors, the Court prioritized procedural certainty and the clear division of jurisdiction between trial and appellate courts. The ruling resolves a circuit split and clarifies that the language of FRAP 4(a)(4) is to be strictly construed, which has a significant impact on appellate practice by requiring litigants to meticulously follow filing deadlines after post-judgment motions are resolved.
Unlock the full brief for Griggs et al. v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.