XPO Logistics, Inc. v. Elliott Capital Advisors, L.P.
673 F. App'x 85
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- XPO (petitioner) and Elliott (respondents) are adversaries in French litigation arising from XPO’s attempted acquisition of Norbert Dentressangle S.A.; both sought discovery in U.S. courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to aid the French proceedings.
- XPO filed a § 1782 application; Elliott also applied for discovery from XPO in the Southern District of New York.
- The district court granted some discovery to Elliott but partially stayed other aspects of Elliott’s § 1782 application, tying the stay to developments in the ongoing French proceedings and indicating it would monitor those developments.
- Elliott appealed the district court’s partial stay to the Second Circuit, arguing the stay was effectively final and appealable.
- XPO moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, contending the stay was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the partial stay of Elliott’s § 1782 application is appealable | Stay effectively puts Elliott out of court and is appealable | Stay is nonfinal; a stay ordinarily is not a final decision under § 1291 | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; stay is nonfinal |
| Whether the stay constituted a "lengthy or indefinite delay" ousting federal jurisdiction | The deferment will practically deny relief and thus is appealable | The stay is tied to monitored foreign developments and is not indefinite | Court found no evidence of lengthy/indefinite delay; not appealable |
| Whether the district court ceded jurisdiction to the French forum | Stay defers decision in a way that cedes authority to France | District court retained authority and will monitor French proceedings | Court concluded district court did not cede jurisdiction |
| Whether a stay of a § 1782 application can ever be appealed | (implicit) Stay here should be appealable given international-litigation interests | Appealability depends on whether stay is final/puts plaintiff out of court | Court acknowledged possible appealability in extreme cases but found none here |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron Corp. v. Berlinger, 629 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2011) (orders granting or denying § 1782 discovery are final adjudications of the § 1782 application)
- Range v. 480-486 Broadway, LLC, 810 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2015) (stay orders ordinarily are not final; appealable only if they effectively put a plaintiff out of court)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (stay may be appealable if it effectively excludes a party from court)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc., 490 F.3d 718 (11th Cir. 2007) (stay that refuses disposition on the merits or imposes lengthy/indefinite delay may be appealable)
- In re Application of Malev Hungarian Airlines, 964 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1992) (§ 1782’s goal includes providing efficient assistance to participants in international litigation)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (district court has discretion to manage proceedings efficiently)