Myra Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc., 965 F.3d 1222

Background

Charles and Myra Corley sued dozens of manufacturers alleging asbestos exposure caused Charles’s mesothelioma; the case was removed to federal court and transferred through MDL procedures (E.D. Pa.), then remanded to N.D. Ala.
The E.D. Pa. court granted summary judgment for 17 "Navy suppliers" on statute-of-limitations grounds; the Corleys later moved to reconsider, arguing for the first time that maritime law applied.
While the case was on remand to Alabama, two defendants (Fairbanks and Garlock) entered bankruptcy and their claims were eliminated; the Corleys moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) to voluntarily dismiss those remaining claims without prejudice.
The N.D. Ala. court granted the Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal and entered what it called a "final judgment"; the Corleys appealed, seeking review of the earlier E.D. Pa. denial of reconsideration.
The Eleventh Circuit considered three jurisdictional questions (finality under §1291, territorial jurisdiction under §1294, and Article III appellate standing) and then addressed the merits of the reconsideration denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an order granting a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. §1291	The Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal that ends the district court’s involvement is final and appealable	Voluntary dismissals without prejudice are not final (no final termination; plaintiff may refile)	Followed earlier controlling precedent (LeCompte/McGregor): a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal of remaining claims qualifies as a final judgment for appeal under §1291
Whether this Circuit has territorial jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1294 to review an out-of-circuit interlocutory order that merged into a final judgment here	The ‘‘reviewable decision’’ is the final, appealable dismissal issued in N.D. Ala., so this Court has territorial jurisdiction	The decision under review is the E.D. Pa. interlocutory denial of reconsideration, which lies outside this Circuit’s territorial jurisdiction	Adopted majority view: §1294 refers to appealable (reviewable) decisions; because the final appealable decision issued in N.D. Ala., this Court has territorial jurisdiction to review the merged interlocutory order
Whether Corleys have Article III appellate standing to appeal from a voluntary dismissal they requested	Corleys are adverse to the final judgment because it incorporates an earlier interlocutory summary-judgment ruling (which they never consented to)	Plaintiffs generally lack adverseness when they voluntarily obtain the relief they sought, so no standing	Corleys have standing: although they sought the dismissal, they are adverse to the incorporated interlocutory summary-judgment ruling that resolved claims on the merits and merged into the final judgment
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration of summary judgment when Corleys first invoked maritime law on reconsideration	Corleys: they may elect maritime law under Rule 9(h) and should be allowed to change course to avoid statute-of-limitations bar	Navy suppliers: the maritime-law theory was raised too late; reconsideration is not the vehicle for new theories	Affirmed: denial was not an abuse of discretion; raising a new substantive choice-of-law theory on reconsideration was untimely and Rule 9(h) does not permit belated invocation of maritime law

Key Cases Cited

Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405 (2015) (defining "final decision" as one that disassociates a district court from a case)
Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869) (federal courts must ensure jurisdiction exists before proceeding)
LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976) (voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) can be appealable)
Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1978) (limitations on finality where dismissal leaves parts of complaint and jurisdictional allegations pending)
McGregor v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 956 F.2d 1017 (11th Cir. 1992) (held Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal is final for purposes of appeal)
Mesa v. United States, 61 F.3d 20 (11th Cir. 1995) (contrary panel holding that a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal was not final)
State Treasurer v. Barry, 168 F.3d 8 (11th Cir. 1999) (discussing limits on finality for stipulated dismissals)
Kirkland v. Nat’l Mortg. Network, Inc., 884 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir. 1989) (defendant appeal from voluntary dismissal can incorporate prior nonfinal orders)
Akin v. PAFEC Ltd., 991 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1993) (interlocutory orders merge into final judgment and become reviewable)
OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., 549 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2008) (appellate standing requires adverseness to the final judgment; exception when interlocutory ruling is case-dispositive)
Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266 (1998) (party may appeal an order that grants in part and denies in part the remedy requested)
United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793 (1949) (dismissal that ends district-court involvement may be appealable)