Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 13-2096
COMPANY;
GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES
Defendants Appellants,
and
GEICO CORPORATION; GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; GEICO CASUALTY
COMPANY; DOES 1-10; MICHAEL BROWN,
Defendants.
13-2149
COMPANY;
GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES
Defendants Appellees,
and
GEICO CORPORATION; GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; GEICO CASUALTY
COMPANY; DOES 1-10; MICHAEL BROWN,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Roger W. Titus, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-01958-RWT)
Argued:
Decided:
June 6, 2014
Employees
Insurance
Company
and
GEICO
General
granting
partial
summary
judgment
against
them
on
the
to
be
interlocutory
awarded.
and
we
Concluding
lack
that
jurisdiction
these
to
appeals
consider
are
them,
we
is
plaintiffs
in
in
the
this
business
matter
of
providing
are
insurance.
security
The
investigators
The
primarily
fraudulent.
Investigators
investigating
work
claims
in
that
GEICOs
are
Claims
suspected
Department
of
being
The
complaint
the
alleges
that
GEICO
improperly
classified
&
Regs.
compensatory
relief.
tit.
and
After
12,
142-2.2..
liquidated
the
The
damages,
district
court
complaint
among
certified
other
the
requests
forms
class,
of
the
granted
rejecting
as
the
a
plaintiffs
matter
of
law
motion
GEICOs
and
The district
denied
contention
GEICOs,
that
the
the court ruled that because GEICO acted in good faith, GEICO
did not act willfully and thus the statute of limitations for
plaintiffs claims extended only for two years.
reasons,
the
court
also
ruled
that
the
For similar
plaintiffs
were
not
And
The
district
court
then
entered
Stipulated
Order
J.A. 109.
The order
noted that both parties reserved the right to appeal the rulings
of the district court underlying the order and that the order
would have no effect unless a judgment of liability is entered
and sustained after all judicial review has been exhausted.
J.A. 109.
produce
amount
an
of
backpay
to
which
each
plaintiff
was
entitled depending upon the total pay received and the total
time worked for each two-week pay period within the applicable
limitations
period.
The
order
further
stated
that
[t]he
J.A. 112.
resolution
parties
are
of
unable
any
to
issue
concerning
resolve.
J.A.
the
remedy
111.
that
There
was
the
no
summary
judgment
to
the
6
plaintiffs
on
the
issue
of
See Dickens
v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 677 F.3d 228, 22930 (4th Cir. 2012).
Because we conclude that we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the
appeals.
With certain limited exceptions, our appellate jurisdiction
extends only to the review of final decisions of the district
courts of the United States.
rule
is
to
combine
in
one
review
all
The purpose of
stages
of
the
leaves
judgment.
nothing
for
the
court
to
do
but
execute
the
not
fix
damages
is
not
final
judgment
because
the
must be determined.
& Trade, 415 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other
grounds by Ray Haluch Gravel Co., 134 S. Ct. at 779-80.
question
of
whether
an
order
is
final,
[t]he
label
On the
that
The
The
district
court
concluded
by
stating
that
the
See id. at
See id.
$7,189.57
plus
interest
8
and
costs,
for
total
of
$7,769.37, and the Clerk entered this judgment on the docket the
same day.
See id.
in
the
court
of
appeals
to
dismiss
the
appeal,
Federal
government
Rule
to
of
Civil
appeal
an
Procedure
adverse
73(a)
allowed
judgment.
See
for
the
id.
The
appeals
Supreme
agreed
Court
relevant
and
dismissed
reversed,
here,
the
however.
Court
noted
the
See id.
appeal.
See
that
id.
in
The court
See
at
an
id.
236.
The
action
As
is
seeking
held
requirements
plaintiff
that
the
because
paid
the
April
it
did
taxes.
14
opinion
not
determine
See
id.
at
Id. at 232.
did
on
234.
not
meet
what
The
these
dates
Without
the
that
See id.
However,
because
necessary
to
the
compute
court
the
has
amount
not
found
of
damages
all
of
due;
the
nor
facts
has
it
Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (holding that judgment was not final
when it failed to specify either the amount of money due the
plaintiff or a formula by which the amount of money could be
computed in mechanical fashion); see also Associated Stores,
Inc. v. Industrial Loan & Inv. Co., 313 F.2d 134, 137 (4th Cir.
1963) (holding that there was no final judgment when the amount
of damages depended upon the amount of money collected by one of
the parties after a particular date on particular contracts but
the district court did not specifically determine that amount).
And
while
the
district
courts
10
order
provides
that
initial
court
has
retained
jurisdiction
to
resolve
or
Thus, it
Corporation,
278
F.2d
191
(4th
Cir.
1960)
(per
We disagree.
picture
distributors
brought
suit
to
In that case,
recover
certain
See id.
recommended
plaintiffs
that
the
entitled
to
certain
See id.
After the
See id.
See id.
document
damages
entitled
each
Final
defendant
or
Judgment,
which
group
defendants
of
set
forth
owed
the
each
See id.
Id.
See id.
See id.
See id. at
the rule that a money judgment may not be deemed final unless
12
Id. at 193.
fact
in
Ram
was
that
the
district
court
in
The
its
September 9, 1959, order had already found all the facts and
resolved all questions of law necessary to determine the amount
of
recovery.
All
that
remained
was
the
ministerial
act
of
Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62, 68 (1948) ([I]f nothing more than
a
ministerial
regarded
as
act
remains
to
concluding
reviewable.).
be
the
done
case
.
and
.,
the
is
decree
is
immediately
affect
the
amount
of
damages,
as
was
reflected
by
the
See id.
determinations
requir[ing]
the
exercise
of
but
does
not
fix
the
amount
13
of,
damages
is
appealable
solely
under
appropriate
28
U.S.C.
certification
1292(b),
by
the
which
requires
district
court
not
only
but
also
Pemberton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 789, 791
(5th Cir. 1993).
lack
application
jurisdiction
for
leave
to
because
there
appeal.
See
has
id.
been
no
timely
Accordingly,
we
14
III.
Concluding
that
we
lack
jurisdiction
to
consider
the