Erin Keena v. Groupon, Inc.
886 F.3d 360
4th Cir.2018Background
- Keena bought a Groupon voucher subject to a contract arbitration clause; when she sought reimbursement she received Groupon Bucks usable only on Groupon.
- Keena sued Groupon individually and as a putative class representative in federal court challenging Groupon’s reimbursement policy.
- Groupon moved to compel arbitration; the district court granted the motion and stayed the litigation pending arbitration (the Arbitration Order).
- Keena asked the district court to amend the Arbitration Order to dismiss her complaint with prejudice because she would not pursue arbitration; the court denied certification for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b) but granted dismissal with prejudice (the Dismissal Order).
- Keena appealed the Dismissal Order as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; the Fourth Circuit considered whether that voluntary dismissal produced an appealable final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice (after a district court orders arbitration and stays the case) converts an interlocutory order into a § 1291 final appealable decision | Keena argued the dismissal produced a final decision under § 1291, allowing immediate appeal of the arbitration/stay order | Groupon argued Microsoft v. Baker controls: a voluntary dismissal does not create § 1291 final-judgment jurisdiction and Keena cannot circumvent interlocutory-appeal procedures | The court held Keena’s voluntary dismissal does not create § 1291 jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
| Whether Green Tree controls to make the dismissal appealable | Keena relied on Green Tree to argue dismissal+compel can be final | Groupon distinguished Green Tree: there the defendant sought dismissal; here plaintiff voluntarily sought dismissal after a stay | The court held Green Tree is distinguishable and does not authorize Keena’s appeal |
| Whether interlocutory appeal procedures (§ 1292(b) / 9 U.S.C. § 16) were required and avoided by dismissal | Keena argued dismissal was an alternate route to appellate review after denial of § 1292(b) certification | Groupon argued statutory scheme requires district/court-of-appeals permission for arbitration-related interlocutory appeals and dismissal cannot circumvent it | The court held Keena could not bypass § 1292(b) or Rule 23(f) by voluntary dismissal; the final-judgment rule bars the tactic |
| Whether longstanding precedent bars appeal from consensual dismissal | Keena downplayed voluntariness, calling dismissal an amendment to the order | Groupon argued consent to dismissal waives appeal rights; longstanding doctrine forbids appeals from voluntary nonsuit | The court treated the dismissal as voluntary and bar on appeals from consensual dismissals applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1703 (2017) (voluntary-dismissal tactic does not create a § 1291 final decision)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (district court order compelling arbitration and dismissing claims by defendant held appealable)
- McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661 (1891) (final-judgment rule requires whole case be decided in a single appeal)
- Kelly v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 86 F.2d 296 (4th Cir. 1936) (no appeal lies from a judgment of voluntary nonsuit)