Liff v. Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor
Civil Action No. 2014-1162
D.D.C.Aug 26, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Stewart Liff, a public-sector consultant, brought procedural-due-process claims against federal agencies and a Bivens claim against individual agency employees; the Court previously allowed the due-process claim to proceed and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the Bivens claim on qualified-immunity grounds but did not decide the statute-of-limitations defense.
- After that Opinion, individual defendants filed a Motion to Reconsider seeking disposition of the statute-of-limitations issue and then filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the Court’s qualified-immunity ruling.
- The district court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal to avoid overlapping jurisdiction with the D.C. Circuit.
- Defendants later moved to lift the stay so the Court could adjudicate the pending Motion to Reconsider, while plaintiffs argued the appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction.
- The central procedural question became whether Rule 4(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (tolling effect for specified postjudgment motions) prevented the notice of appeal from divesting the district court until the Motion to Reconsider (styled in part under Rule 59(e)) was resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court retains jurisdiction to decide a pending Motion to Reconsider after a notice of interlocutory appeal on qualified immunity | Liff: the notice of appeal divested the district court as to matters in the appeal; only claims not specified in the notice could proceed in district court | Defendants: their Motion to Reconsider is a Rule 59(e) motion that tolls the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4), so the notice of appeal is ineffective until that motion is resolved | The court held Rule 4(a)(4) applies because the Motion to Reconsider seeks reconsideration of matters encompassed in the appealable qualified-immunity judgment; therefore the court retained jurisdiction and lifted the stay |
| Whether the defendants’ Motion to Reconsider qualifies as a Rule 59(e) motion for Rule 4(a)(4) purposes | Liff: the motion attacks statute-of-limitations, not the qualified-immunity judgment, so it is not a Rule 59(e) motion that preserves district-court jurisdiction | Defendants: their motion seeks substantive alteration of the judgment (dismissal on timeliness grounds) and thus falls within Rule 59(e) and Rule 4(a)(4) | The court found the motion sufficiently related to the merits and not wholly collateral; Rule 59(e) triggers Rule 4(a)(4) here |
| Whether the statute-of-limitations issue is sufficiently intertwined with qualified immunity to warrant district-court resolution before appeal | Liff: limitations is distinct and fact-intensive; appeal should proceed first | Defendants: limitations and qualified immunity are factually interwoven and resolving limitations could avoid piecemeal appellate review | The court agreed they are factually intertwined and resolving timeliness may avoid unnecessary appeals |
| Whether lifting the stay would render any resulting timeliness decision immediately appealable | Liff: argued about immediate appealability of a timeliness ruling | Defendants: sought district-court resolution regardless of immediate appealability | The court declined to decide immediate appealability, only held it has jurisdiction now and lifted the stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866 (power to stay incidental to court’s docket control)
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (stay power and factors for staying proceedings)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (notice of appeal divests district court of control over matters involved in appeal)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (denial of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision)
- White v. N.H. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (Rule 59(e) triggers Rule 4(a)(4) when it seeks reconsideration of matters encompassed in the decision on the merits)
- Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc., 485 U.S. 265 (postjudgment motions must involve reconsideration of aspects of the merits to toll appeal)
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (Rule 59(e) coverage is broad; motion need not mirror decision if it revisits matters tied to the judgment)
- Marsh v. Johnson, 263 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2003) (stay may be lifted when original reasons no longer apply)