Hall v. Hall (16-1150)

argument 16-1150

Hall v. Hall

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Why does the Court argue that a final judgment creates an automatic right of appeal?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case sixteen eleven fifty, Hall versus Hall. Mr Simpson.

Mr. Simpson 0:07

Mr Chief Justice, may it please the Court. Ever since the Judiciary Act of seventeen eighty nine, there has been a right of appeal from a final judgment. We ask that this court uh support the right of appeal in this case because for three reasons. First, it comes from a final judgment entered in the case. It provides a bright line rule that brooks no exception. When a final judgment is entered, you have a right of appeal. Second, Rule forty two does not merge cases. There is a careful architecture in the federal rules from Rules thirteen through rule twenty four designed to bring cases that should be tried as one case together. Rule forty two, on the other hand, is for the exceptional case that doesn't fall within the cla categories that fall under Rules thirteen through twenty four.

Mr. Simpson 0:56

And and there's no reason for merger in those cases.

Elena Kagan 0:59

Please to explain to me what the purpose of forty two dividing it up into two sections is. Because you don't need the B section. um under your reading. Why use the word consolidate, which your adversary points out generally has a connotation of merging two things into one. Why use it at all? What's the necessity of it?

Mr. Simpson 1:26

I I think Rule forty two A one, which talks about joining for hearing or trial. is designed for the case that the judge wants to keep on separate tracks, but has a reason to have, say, an omnibus hearing. Whereas forty two A two is for true consolidation, whether it's for trial, for hearing, for pretrial.

Elena Kagan 1:45

I don't understand the necessity. Meaning if we had only A one. Um the court could do exactly what you're saying as well. It didn't need a two to accomplish What A one already says it can. Suggests to me that there's a separate purpose for A two.

Mr. Simpson 2:03

I I agree that there is a separate purpose. I think as in in the as footnote four in the ringwald case explains The old konsolidation statute actually is embodied in a two and a three. It's A one that is new. So there was consolidation before and A two and A three continue the consolidation. What A one does is allow uh for as I say an omnibus hearing that where the cases remain on separate tracks. And if I can give an example of how that would work. Suppose there is a mass tort, a uh industrial explosion. You have a class of plaintiffs, separate actions that are death cases. You have some who are terminally ill from this case, from this explosion. You have some that have property damage only. The court might decide I'm going to consolidate under a two.

Mr. Simpson 2:53

the death cases and the people who are terminal and the pro and and the eighth and the property damage. So we have s three separate groups, three separate tack tracks. It makes sense to keep those cases together and consolidate them under A two. But there might be, for example, the initial hearing where the judge says, despite that I've got these three groups of consolidated cases separately consolidated, I also have overriding administrative business to do. And I'm going to do that under A one. I'm going to have an omnibus pretrial hearing under A one. I'm going to bring everyone together. I'm not consolidating these three groups, but we're going to talk about how we're going to administer this case.

Elena Kagan 3:32

How is this different from a case in which a plaintiff brings multiple claims? not all of them directly related. Um and in that situation, if there's a partial entry of judgment on one of the claims, you can't appeal. How is this different?

Mr. Simpson 3:50

Are you talking about where the plaintiff has filed separate lawsuits or just one lawsuit?

Elena Kagan 3:54

One lawsuit with multiple claims.

Mr. Simpson 3:57

Because th this this is a my my client's case is one lawsuit with multiple claims that preceded determination. Your

Unknown 4:07

client has not brought a lawsuit with multiple claims. Your client has brought a claim. And it's not like a multi w one plaintiff has one, two, three claims. This is a separate claim brought not by the plaintiff. So it's not the plaintiff uh picking one plane and and uh leaving out another uh plaintiff's claim.