Chantal Attias v. CareFirst, Inc.
969 F.3d 412
D.C. Cir.2020Background
- In June 2014 hackers accessed CareFirst’s servers and obtained customer data; seven named insureds sued on behalf of similarly situated insureds asserting tort, contract, and statutory claims across D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.
- Plaintiffs raised 11 state-law claim types (tort, contract, consumer-protection, and D.C. breach-notification) amounting to 54 claims overall.
- After an initial dismissal on standing that this Court reversed, the case returned to the district court, which dismissed nearly all claims on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds: every claim of five plaintiffs and all but two claims of the Tringlers (Maryland plaintiffs) survived.
- The district court—at the parties’ request and without explanation—entered final judgment on the dismissed claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and stayed the remaining Tringler claims pending appeal.
- This Court sua sponte questioned its appellate jurisdiction, ordered supplemental briefing, and analyzed whether the Rule 54(b) certification satisfied Article III and §1291 final-judgment requirements (distinct claim(s), finality, and an explained determination of “no just reason for delay”).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s Rule 54(b) certification created an appealable final judgment | The dismissed claims were distinct and final, so immediate appeal was proper | Parties agreed at district court that Rule 54(b) certification was appropriate | Certification failed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because claims were not properly severable or the certification was unexplained |
| Whether the Tringlers’ surviving claims are sufficiently distinct from their dismissed claims to be certified | Tringlers: remaining claims are separable from dismissed claims | CareFirst: dismissed and surviving claims arise from same transaction and are not severable | Court: Tringlers’ claims arise from same transaction and cannot be severed under Tolson; no jurisdiction to hear certified appeal |
| Whether the non-Tringler dismissed claims were separable from the Tringlers’ pending claims so as to permit certification of the dismissed claims | Plaintiffs: dismissed claims for other plaintiffs are severable and certifiable | CareFirst: claims overlap substantially across plaintiffs; certification risks piecemeal appeals | Court: intertwined claims and lack of district-court reasoning make it impossible to determine whether certification would be permissible; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the district court satisfied Rule 54(b)’s “no just reason for delay” requirement (and adequately explained it) | The district court’s express statement that there was "no just reason for delay" sufficed | Same (parties did not press a contrary position below) | Court: Rule 54(b) requires an explained determination; here the district court gave no reasoning, so this factor could not be evaluated and appellate jurisdiction is lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956) (Rule 54(b) does not relax finality; enables appeals of individual final claims in multi-claim suits)
- Tolson v. United States, 732 F.2d 998 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (claims that are transactionally related cannot be severed under Rule 54(b))
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (district court must weigh judicial administrative interests and equities in Rule 54(b) decisions)
- Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of Superior Cal. v. Babbitt, 161 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (district court must expressly state reasons; appellate court will "do the best it can" to discern rationale but may dismiss if unexplained)
- Brooks v. Dist. Hosp. Partners, 606 F.3d 800 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (appellate court will dismiss if district court unreasonably weighed equities in Rule 54(b) decision)
- Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35 (1995) (orders not resolving a distinct claim are not decisions for §1291 purposes)
- Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582 (2020) (§1291 ordinarily requires resolution of every claim of every party)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (Article III and statutory jurisdictional prerequisites must be addressed before merits)
- Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (earlier appellate reversal of district-court standing dismissal in this case)