Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702

plaintiffs alleged Xbox 360 design defect and sought class treatment; district court struck class allegations; Ninth Circuit denied Rule 23(f) permission; respondents dismissed claims with prejudice but reserved right to revive if certification reversed; respondents appealed only the denial/strike of class allegations; Microsoft argued dismissal prevented appellate review under Rule 23(f) and §1291
the dismissal-with-prejudice tactic was designed to create an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order; respondents sought to review the class-striking order despite not pursuing individual claims to final judgment
Rule 23(f) authorizes discretionary interlocutory review of class-certification decisions; respondents chose to dismiss claims to trigger review; district court proceedings could be disrupted by piecemeal appeals
the Court held that voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not constitute a final decision under §1291 and cannot create mandatory appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order
Rulemaking framework (Rules Enabling Act) directs review mechanism for prejudgment orders through Rule 23(f) rather than by converting interlocutory orders into final judgments
Conclusion: Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction to review the order under §1291 is lacking; remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether voluntary dismissal with prejudice yields a final decision under §1291	respondents used dismissal to obtain immediate appeal	Microsoft argues no final decision; dismissal cannot finalize the case	No final decision under §1291
Whether Rule 23(f) skews finality by allowing discretionary review	Rule 23(f) should permit appeal from denial of class certification	Rule 23(f) balances finality and review; dismissal tactic undermines this balance	Rule 23(f) control; dismissal tactic not permitted to create automatic appeal
Whether the policy concerns of finality and interference with district proceedings justify denying jurisdiction	finality guarantees prevent piecemeal appeals	allows efficiency via Rule 23(f)	Finality concerns upheld; no jurisdiction under §1291
Whether the dismissal tactic could be used to force immediate appellate review against defendants	plaintiff-driven appeals imperative to ensure efficiency	not applicable; tactic creates imbalance	One-sided tactic undermines §1291 and Rule 23(f)

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463 (1978) (death-knell doctrine not warranting mandatory appellate jurisdiction)
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U. S. 100 (2009) (finality and rulemaking; limits on immediate appeals)
Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863 (1994) (final-judgment concept and finality interpretations)
Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323 (1940) (finality not a technical termination; serves healthy legal system)
Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U. S. 35 (1995) (rulemaking as preferred means for determining finality and review)
Blair v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999) (illustrative of Rule 23(f) discretionary review)