Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 792 F.3d 1017

Alpine Glass, a Minnesota auto-glass repairer, sought payment from insurers for 482 separate claims; Minnesota law mandates arbitration of such disputes.
Alpine filed a consolidated declaratory-judgment action in state court to consolidate the 482 claims into one arbitration; Country Mutual removed to federal court on diversity and aggregated amount-in-controversy grounds.
The district court found 248 claims eligible for consolidation and ordered a single arbitration for them, ruling 234 claims time-barred under a two-year limitation in some policies.
After an arbitration on a single "test" claim (for $398.77) resulted for the insurer, Alpine moved to vacate the award; the district court denied the vacatur motion and then confirmed the award, directing entry of final judgment as to that one claim.
Alpine appealed the confirmation; the insurers challenged appellate jurisdiction because hundreds of claims remained and no Rule 54(b) certification or § 1292(b) certification was obtained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over confirmation of one arbitration award when many claims remain	Alpine argued the test-claim final judgment permits immediate appeal and would allow review of consolidation issues	Insurers argued lack of jurisdiction because multiple claims remain and no Rule 54(b) certification was made (and §1292(b) not sought)	Court held it lacks jurisdiction: no Rule 54(b) determination and §1292(b) not pursued, so appeal dismissed
Whether the test-claim procedure can be treated as an independent diversity case	Alpine urged the test claim could be used to reach consolidation issue on appeal	Insurers argued single $398.77 claim cannot support diversity jurisdiction absent aggregation	Court held test claim cannot be treated as an independent diversity case because amount in controversy is insufficient
Whether prior appellate footnote authorized this procedure	Alpine relied on the court's earlier footnote suggesting a test-claim route	Insurers argued that suggestion cannot create appellate jurisdiction	Court held the prior footnote cannot create jurisdiction and offered no basis to bypass Rule 54(b) requirements
Whether mandamus relief is appropriate if jurisdiction is lacking	Alpine requested that the court treat the appeal as a mandamus petition	Insurers opposed extraordinary relief	Court declined to issue a writ, finding no basis under mandamus standards

Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 686 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2012) (prior appellate decision addressing consolidation order and jurisdiction)
Mathers v. Wright, 636 F.3d 396 (8th Cir. 2011) (Rule 54(b) "no just reason for delay" requirement is mandatory)
Williams v. Cnty. of Dakota, Neb., 687 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2012) (Rule 54(b) is to be used sparingly and reviewed for abuse of discretion)