Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods. v. NCR Corp., 40 F.4th 481

Georgia-Pacific (GP) filed a petition for rehearing en banc after a panel decision in a CERCLA-related dispute; the petition was denied and the panel added an Appendix explaining its rulings.
Weyerhaeuser (an appellee) argued in its appellee brief that the statute of limitations barred GP’s claims against it (adopting portions of International Paper’s brief), but it did not file a cross-appeal seeking affirmative relief.
GP contends that, because Weyerhaeuser sought to benefit from a favorable statute-of-limitations ruling, Weyerhaeuser should have filed a cross-appeal; GP argues failure to do so should preclude the panel from applying that ruling to Weyerhaeuser.
The panel analyzed whether the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(3) cross-appeal requirement is jurisdictional or a forfeitable claim-processing rule in light of recent Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent (notably Hamer and Gunter).
The court held the cross-appeal requirement is a mandatory claim-processing rule (not jurisdictional) and, because GP did not timely raise the objection, GP forfeited the argument; the panel therefore applied the statute-of-limitations ruling to Weyerhaeuser.
GP also asked the panel to address International Paper’s secured-creditor exception under CERCLA; the panel declined because it resolved the case on an alternative ground and GP had not contested IP’s framing of that issue as alternative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an appellee must file a cross-appeal before a panel may apply an appeal ruling (statute-of-limitations) to that appellee	Weyerhaeuser should have cross-appealed; absent a cross-appeal an appellee cannot obtain relief that enlarges its rights	Weyerhaeuser advanced the statute-of-limitations defense in its appellee brief and urged the court to apply the ruling to it, but did not file a cross-appeal	Rule 4(a)(3) is a mandatory claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional; GP forfeited the objection by not timely raising it, so the panel applied the statute-of-limitations ruling to Weyerhaeuser
Whether the panel should decide International Paper’s secured-creditor exception under CERCLA	GP urged the panel to address the secured-creditor defense	IP presented the secured-creditor defense as an alternative ground for reversal	The panel declined to address the secured-creditor issue because it had resolved the case on another alternative basis and GP never disputed that framing

El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473 (superseded appellee relief rule regarding cross-appeals) (discusses limits on appellee relief without cross-appeal)
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (clarifies cross-appeal importance but not jurisdictional status)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (explains only Congress may make a rule jurisdictional; distinguishes statutory limits from court-promulgated rules)
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (procedural requirements may be forfeited unless jurisdictional)
Gunter v. Bemis Co., 906 F.3d 484 (6th Cir.) (held Rule 4(a)(3) cross-appeal timing is a claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional)
Mathias v. Superintendent Frackville SCI, 876 F.3d 462 (3d Cir.) (concluded Rule 4(a)(3) is nonjurisdictional)
In re IPR Licensing, Inc., 942 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (supports view that cross-appeal requirement is forfeitable practice)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (distinguishes statutory appeal deadlines from rule-based cross-appeal requirements)
United States v. Burch, 781 F.3d 342 (6th Cir.) (discussed cross-appeal requirement where failure was raised to the court)