Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 3, 2020

Farris v. International Association of Bridge

Full caption

Farris v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Reinforcing Steel Local 11

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:20-cv-01314
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Farris v. Local 11, Judge Carter denied CEC Steel leave to appeal an order requiring it to appear through counsel or face dismissal.

Who this affects

CEC Steel Limited Liability Company was denied permission to appeal the order requiring it to appear through counsel or face dismissal. The defendant was required to serve the order and file proof of service.

What happened

In Farris v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Reinforcing Steel Local 11, the court had ordered CEC Steel to appear through a lawyer by January 8, 2021, or be dismissed from the case. CEC Steel later asked for permission to appeal that order.

The court explained that appeals generally may be taken from final decisions or certain qualifying nonfinal orders. It concluded that the order requiring CEC Steel to appear through counsel did not qualify under those rules.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied CEC Steel leave to appeal and denied its request for certification for an immediate appeal under federal law. The defendant was ordered to serve a copy of the order on the plaintiff and file proof of service by December 8, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Farris v. International Association of Bridge · No. 1:20-cv-01314
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Dec. 3, 2020

Background

On November 24, 2020, the court ordered plaintiff CEC Steel Limited Liability Company to appear through counsel by January 8, 2021. The court warned that CEC Steel would be dismissed from the case if it failed to do so. CEC Steel later sent a letter asking for permission to appeal that order.

Appeal standards

The court stated that federal appeals courts generally have jurisdiction over final decisions and certain nonfinal orders. A final decision ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the district court to do except carry out the judgment.

The court also discussed the collateral-order doctrine, which can permit an immediate appeal of a nonfinal order when the order conclusively decides the disputed question, resolves an important issue separate from the case's merits, and would be effectively impossible to review after final judgment. The court additionally addressed 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which permits certification of an immediate appeal when a nonfinal order involves a controlling legal question with substantial disagreement and an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation.

Ruling

The court held that its order requiring CEC Steel to appear through counsel within 45 days or be dismissed was not appealable under those doctrines. It therefore DENIED CEC Steel leave to file an appeal. To the extent CEC Steel sought certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court DENIED that certification request as well.

The court also ORDERED the defendant to serve the plaintiff with a copy of the order and file proof of service by December 8, 2020.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.