Oberlander v. Bayrock Group LLC
674 F. App'x 10
2d Cir.2016Background
- Fredrick M. Oberlander, former counsel to plaintiffs in Kriss v. Bayrock, sought to appeal the Southern District of New York’s February 1, 2016 order vacating a Magistrate Judge’s April 30, 2015 order (the “Maas Order”).
- The Maas Order had required Oberlander and his partner to surrender certain documents and barred their dissemination or filing of those documents.
- Oberlander and Lerner objected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The District Court initially stayed the Maas Order pending further briefing, then vacated it on the ground that courts lack general authority to permanently order surrender and nondissemination of documents obtained outside the judicial process (relying on Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assoc. v. Technicare Corp.).
- Oberlander, proceeding pro se, appealed the District Court’s vacatur, asserting appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292.
- The Second Circuit dismissed Oberlander’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the District Court’s order was not final, did not fit § 1292(a)(1)’s injunction exception, and did not satisfy the collateral-order doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Oberlander) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees / Court below) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court order was a "final" decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Order was final as to Oberlander after he ceased representing the plaintiffs | Order left issues unresolved and required further action from Oberlander (show-cause re: filing documents) | Not final; no § 1291 jurisdiction |
| Whether the order is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as an order dissolving/refusing an injunction | The vacatur effectively dissolved an injunction and is immediately appealable | No showing of "serious, perhaps irreparable" consequences or need for immediate review; policy against piecemeal appeals controls | Not appealable under § 1292(a)(1) |
| Whether the collateral-order doctrine permits immediate appeal | Order conclusively decided an important issue separate from the merits (permanently affecting Oberlander) | Order is reviewable after final judgment; not effectively unreviewable now | Does not meet collateral-order criteria; appeal not allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assoc. v. Technicare Corp., 710 F.2d 940 (2d Cir. 1983) (limits court authority to order permanent surrender/nondissemination of documents obtained outside judicial process)
- Cuomo v. Barr, 7 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1993) (§ 1292(a)(1) injunction appeals require risk of serious, irreparable consequence for immediate appeal)
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1981) (standard for interlocutory appeals of injunction-related orders)
- Schwartz v. City of New York, 57 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 1995) (elements of collateral-order doctrine stated)
- Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198 (U.S. 1999) (collateral-order doctrine requires effective unreviewability on appeal from final judgment)
- MacEwen Petroleum, Inc. v. Tarbell, 136 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 1998) (definition of a final order for § 1291 purposes)