Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp.
135 S. Ct. 897
SCOTUS2015Background
- Gelboim and Zacher filed a class action asserting a single federal antitrust claim related to alleged LIBOR manipulation; their case was transferred into the LIBOR MDL (MDL No. 2262) under 28 U.S.C. §1407.
- The MDL transferee court granted the banks’ motion to dismiss the Gelboim‑Zacher complaint for failure to allege antitrust injury, denied leave to amend, and dismissed that case in its entirety.
- Other actions in the MDL included multiple‑claim complaints that remained pending; the district court granted Rule 54(b) certifications to some of those plaintiffs to permit immediate appeals of their dismissed antitrust claims.
- Gelboim and Zacher filed a notice of appeal; the Second Circuit sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the dismissal was not appealable while other consolidated MDL cases remained pending.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a district‑court dismissal of an individual transferred action in an MDL is a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. §1291 and therefore immediately appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dismissal of an individual case transferred into an MDL is a §1291 final decision | Gelboim: dismissal of their case terminated their action and therefore is immediately appealable under §1291 | Banks: consolidation for §1407 purposes creates a unitary proceeding; no appeal of right until MDL pretrial proceedings end (or Rule 54(b) applies) | Held: dismissal of an individual transferred action in its entirety is a §1291 final decision and immediately appealable |
| Whether §1407 converts transferred actions into a single, indivisible action for appealability purposes | Gelboim: §1407 transfers individual "actions" and does not merge them into one monolithic action | Banks: §1407 consolidation justifies treating the MDL as a single unit for timing of appeals | Held: §1407 preserves separate identities of transferred actions; no merger that prevents an immediate appeal of a terminated transferred action |
| Whether Rule 54(b) prevents immediate appeal by single‑claim plaintiffs in an MDL | Gelboim: Rule 54(b) does not apply to single‑claim actions and thus cannot bar their §1291 appeal | Banks: relying on Rule 54(b) and MDL efficiency concerns to argue against piecemeal appeals | Held: Rule 54(b) cannot be used to deny immediate appeal by a single‑claim plaintiff; it serves to permit acceleration in multi‑claim cases but does not restrict §1291 rights |
| Practical trigger for the 30‑day appeal clock in MDL dismissals | Gelboim: the district court’s dismissal of their action is the event that starts the appeal period | Banks: uncertain when the appeal period would run if parties must await MDL completion | Held: sensible rule is that a district‑court dismissal of an individual transferred action starts the appeal clock; waiting for MDL conclusion would be unworkable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (§1407 does not transform transferred actions into a single new action)
- Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (final decision defined by disassociation from the case)
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (§1291 given practical construction)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (finality and collateral‑order principles)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (Rule 54(b) inapplicable to single‑claim actions)
- Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (final decision ends litigation on the merits)