Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp. (13-1174)

argument 13-1174

Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue the parties are arguing about the final‑judgment rule?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case thirteen, eleven seventy-four, Delboyne versus Bank of America. Mr. Goldstein?

Michael Goldstein 0:07

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court. My clients filed this lawsuit against mister Waxman's clients. The district court dismissed that lawsuit and said that it was terminated. Now from the earliest days of this court's jur excuse me, this nation's jurisdictional statutes, that would be an appealable order under the aptly named final judgment rule. And that must be so unless something changed with Congress's enactment of Section fourteen oh seven A, the multi district litigation statute. And we ask you to hold that nothing changed and it was appealable for three reasons. The first is the judgment was entered in disaction. It was dismissed. We had our own complaint, our own docket, our own lawyers, our own plaintiffs, and our own defendants.

Michael Goldstein 0:52

The second is that there is no judgment in the MDL itself. So there is nothing from which we could appeal at the end of the MDL litigation. So it must be that we appeal from this. And the third is that Rule fifty four B of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply, because that applies to the dismissal of part of an action, some of the claims or some of the parties, not the whole action, and here the whole action was dismissed.

Elena Kagan 1:18

Could you tell me first? What difference there is, if any? Pursuant to your reasons. That would not apply to a consolidated case for all purposes, number one. And number two. Isn't a case consolidated with others for purposes of pre trial proceedings? a pending action that involves multiple parties.

Michael Goldstein 1:48

As to the first, there are different forms of consolidation. Both sides agree with that, they make this point the respondents do on page thirty three of their brief. There are forms of consolidation that produce a single action. That can happen under Rule twenty with joinder. It can happen under rule forty two A one if the parties consent with consolidation. The cases can become so intertwined that there is effectively one case, one complaint, and one action.

Elena Kagan 2:13

That's frankly not the majority of the cases. That

Michael Goldstein 2:16

it does not happen most of the time.

Elena Kagan 2:17

In most of the MDLs. Most of the cases retain their individual character, even though they're consolidated for all purposes. Um there may be a case that's taken as a test case among the many, etcetera. Your rule basically is saying consolidation now will permit piecemeal appeals in almost every circumstance, except For a very limited number.

Michael Goldstein 2:42

One preliminary point and then the question about what our ru rule produces. In MDL litigation, as this district court recognized, you actually don't have consolidation for all purposes. Section fourteen oh seven A Specifies that there can be consolidation for pretrial purposes only. The pretrial purposes in this case are over. The complaint was dismissed. Now, as to the policy arguments of the respondents, that there is a grave concern that our rule would produce interlocutory appeals that go up to the Court of Appeals lots of different times, there is a straightforward answer to that point. And that is that district courts, just as they have the discretion to enter a partial final judgment under Rule fifty four B have the same discretion to avoid entering a final judgment in individual actions under Rule fifty eight B, and this is very common in MDL litigation.

Michael Goldstein 3:29

Just as you indicate, Justice Sodomaior, very frequently district courts will enter consolidated complaints and will not enter orders in the individual actions that would be appealable. The distinct feature of this case, the critical distinct feature here, is that this district court decided to dismiss in its entirety our individual action. She didn't have to do that, but she did it consciously.

John G. Roberts 3:53

Does the um one hundred and fifty day provision kick in? I mean you say that don't worry about this district courts can just Put it on the back burner for Three years, however long? Doesn't the 150-day provision kick in if in fact the District Court has dismissed all of the uh claims?