Hamrit v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-10443
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hamrit v. Citigroup, Judge Cronan deemed Hamrit’s interlocutory appeal frivolous and ineffective, allowing the case and post-trial briefing to continue.
The ruling directly affected Plaintiff Houssam Eddine Hamrit and Defendants Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., et al., by allowing the district court to retain control of the case and requiring the parties to proceed with scheduled post-trial briefing.
What happened
In Hamrit v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Plaintiff Houssam Eddine Hamrit appealed before the court entered a final judgment, challenging an order that excluded testimony from Larry F. Stewart. The parties were still completing post-trial briefing.
The court explained that this type of mid-case appeal generally cannot proceed because the order was not final. Hamrit had not asked the court to certify the order for immediate appeal, and the court found no basis for another exception that would allow review before the case ended.
Judge John P. Cronan ruled that the notice of appeal was frivolous and did not take jurisdiction away from the district court. The court allowed the case to continue and kept the parties’ post-trial briefing deadlines in place.
The detailed version
- Hamrit v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10443
- John Cronan
- Dec. 10, 2024
Background
On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff Houssam Eddine Hamrit filed a notice of an interlocutory appeal—an appeal taken before the case is over—from the Court’s November 26, 2024 order granting Defendants’ motion in limine and excluding the testimony of Larry F. Stewart. The court had not entered a final judgment, and post-trial briefing was still pending.
Why the Court Rejected Immediate Appeal
The court explained that federal appellate courts generally review final decisions, meaning decisions that end the district-court case. A ruling on a motion in limine is ordinarily an interim order that becomes part of the final judgment rather than an immediately appealable decision.
The court discussed two possible exceptions. First, a district court may certify a non-final order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) when the order involves a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the case. Hamrit had not requested that certification, and the court stated that such a request would lack merit here. Second, the collateral-order doctrine permits immediate review of a narrow category of important issues separate from the main case. The court found no authority suggesting that this motion-in-limine ruling qualified under that doctrine.
Ruling
The court determined that Hamrit’s interlocutory appeal was frivolous for two reasons: there was no apparent basis for appellate jurisdiction, and the court had not yet issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law following the bench trial. The court noted that it could still rule for Plaintiff on the merits, which could make the evidentiary ruling irrelevant.
The court therefore deemed Plaintiff’s notice of interlocutory appeal frivolous and legally ineffective to remove the district court’s jurisdiction. The parties’ post-trial briefing remained due as scheduled.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.