Gateway KGMP Development, Inc. v. Tecumseh Products Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19574

Background

Multiple compressor purchasers (direct and indirect) filed separate antitrust suits in different districts alleging price-fixing and market division.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases to the Eastern District of Michigan for consolidated pretrial proceedings (MDL).
Indirect purchasers filed a single consolidated ("master") amended complaint in the transferee court; defendants moved to dismiss parts of it.
The district court dismissed some claims, which fully terminated six indirect purchasers’ claims but left other plaintiffs’ claims in the consolidated complaint intact.
The six dismissed buyers sought immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (or alternatively certification under Rule 54(b) / § 1292(b)); the district court denied Rule 54(b) and § 1292(b) relief.
The Sixth Circuit considered whether the dismissal of some plaintiffs from a consolidated MDL operative complaint produced a "final" appealable order; it held it did not and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district-court dismissal of some plaintiffs from a consolidated MDL complaint is a "final" order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291	The dismissed plaintiffs argued the order was final and immediately appealable because their individual cases had been terminated	Defendants argued the consolidated operative complaint merged plaintiffs into one action, so partial dismissal is non-final absent Rule 54(b) or § 1292(b) certification	Held: Not final. When plaintiffs file an operative consolidated complaint in MDL, a partial dismissal is non-final absent certification; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the MDL "master" pleading filed here was merely administrative or an operative consolidated complaint	Plaintiffs contended the filing was administrative only, so their original separate actions remained distinct and appealable	Defendants pointed to how the master complaint was used (service, answer deadlines, Rule 15 requests, motions to dismiss) to show it was operative	Held: The document was an operative consolidated complaint that superseded individual complaints
Whether MDL transfers require a special finality rule different from ordinary § 1291 treatment	Plaintiffs urged a different rule to avoid hardship from waiting until end of MDL pretrial proceedings	Defendants argued § 1291 is uniform; special rules would complicate jurisdiction and encourage piecemeal appeals	Held: No special MDL finality rule adopted; ordinary complaint-focused finality governs; hardships do not override statutory finality

Key Cases Cited

Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) (remand requirement after MDL pretrial proceedings prohibits transferee court keeping cases for trial)
Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (jurisdictional assessment looks to the operative amended complaint)
Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009) (an amended complaint supersedes earlier complaints)
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (administrative simplicity is important in jurisdictional rules)
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (statutory and rulemaking channels, not judicial expansion, are preferred to create interlocutory appeal paths)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (jurisdictional rules cannot be disregarded due to hardship)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956) (when multiple claims are in one complaint, partial disposals are generally non-final)
Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co., 470 U.S. 1067 (1985) (mem.) (finality defects are frequently overlooked and treated strictly)
Beil v. Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co., 15 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 1994) (when court-ordered consolidation occurs, cases often retain separate identities for appealability)
Klyce v. Ramirez, 852 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff-filed amended complaints merge previously separate cases for finality purposes)