Glover v. Federal Deposit Insurance , 543 F. App'x 149 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    __________
    No. 12-4630
    __________
    MARY E. GLOVER,
    individually and on behalf of other similarly situated former and current homeowners in
    Pennsylvania,
    Appellant
    v.
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
    as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.; MARK J. UDREN; UDREN LAW
    OFFICES, P.C.; WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; GOLDMAN SACHS
    MORTGAGE COMPANY
    __________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil No. 2-08-cv-00990)
    District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
    __________
    Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    October 28, 2013
    Before: FISHER, JORDAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
    (Opinion Filed: October 29, 2013)
    __________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    __________
    ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
    Mary Glover appeals from an Order of the United States District Court for the
    Western District of Pennsylvania denying her motion to enforce a Stipulation in
    connection with a certification Order under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure. She contends that the District Court erred in appointing a Magistrate Judge
    and Special Master to oversee discovery from dismissed defendants because the dismissal
    was certified as final and appealable under Rule 54(b). We will dismiss this appeal for
    want of jurisdiction.
    I.
    Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and the
    proceedings in this case, we will revisit them only briefly. Glover filed a complaint in
    District Court on behalf of herself and a putative class of homeowners against multiple
    defendants, seeking damages resulting from defendants’ handling of mortgage loans.
    Glover later agreed to dismiss with prejudice her federal claims against Mark Udren and
    Udren Law Offices (“Udren”) and entered into a Stipulation wherein Udren agreed to
    “comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) and make their initial discovery disclosures within
    10 days of the Court’s approval of this Stipulation.” App. 104a-105a. The District Court
    certified the dismissal as a final decision under Rule 54(b), allowing for immediate
    appeal from the decision notwithstanding Glover’s unresolved claims against the
    remaining defendants.
    Pursuant to the Stipulation, Udren submitted documents purporting to comply with
    its discovery obligations. In response, Glover filed a flood of discovery motions to
    enforce a more expansive reading of the documents required under the Stipulation. The
    District Court referred the discovery dispute to a Magistrate Judge who appointed a
    2
    Special Master to oversee all discovery, including the documents Glover sought under the
    Stipulation. Glover objected and filed a petition for writ of mandamus in our Court to
    review the appointment of the Special Master. We denied the petition.
    At a status conference before the Magistrate Judge, Glover stated that she would
    not appear before the Special Master and represented that she would not file any more
    discovery motions. The Magistrate Judge then closed discovery. Nevertheless, Glover
    filed another motion to enforce the Stipulation with Udren, seeking documents related to
    class certification in the ongoing litigation. The Magistrate Judge issued an Order on
    November 19, 2012 denying the motion to enforce, emphasizing that discovery had
    closed. The District Court issued an Order on December 19, 2012 sustaining the
    Magistrate Judge’s Order over Glover’s objections. Glover appeals. 1
    II.
    We have jurisdiction over “final decisions of the district courts,” 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and must decide whether the District Court’s Order denying the Motion to
    Enforce the Rule 54(b) Stipulation is a final, appealable decision. We hold that it is not.
    III.
    A.
    We are unpersuaded by Glover’s argument that the District Court Order was a
    final decision ripe for immediate appeal. A district court decision is “final” under § 1291
    1 The District Court had diversity jurisdiction over Glover’s claims and the defendants
    properly removed to federal court. 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1332
    , 1441. The District Court also had
    federal jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1331
     because Glover later added a federal claim.
    3
    if it “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute
    the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 
    324 U.S. 229
    , 233 (1945). “Discovery rulings are
    interlocutory in nature, and are generally not appealable before final judgment on the
    merits.” Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 
    747 F.2d 174
    , 178 (3d Cir. 1984).
    Glover insists that the Order denying enforcement of the Stipulation was a final
    decision leaving nothing for the District Court to do as to Udren. Br. of Appellant 26.
    “[I]n view of our circuit’s disinclination to expand the class of appealable final orders,”
    Bachowski v. Usery, 
    545 F.2d 363
    , 373 (3d Cir. 1976), we reject Glover’s argument.
    Instead, we conclude that the Order was interlocutory because Glover’s motion ultimately
    concerned the ongoing litigation with the remaining defendants.
    As the District Court noted, “[a]lthough [the Udren] defendants are on a different
    track than defendants Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs, plaintiff has sought discovery
    from the Udren defendants relative to its motion for class certification [in the ongoing
    litigation].” App. 203a. Glover’s own motions concede this. See, e.g., Substituted
    Emergency Mot. to Compel at 4, Glover v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 2-08-cv-
    00990 (Dkt. No. 288) (“[T]he immediate need for putative class information . . . drives
    the need for this emergency motion [for Udren discovery].”). Accordingly, because
    Glover’s motion was inextricably linked to discovery in the ongoing case, the District
    Court’s Order was interlocutory and not a final decision. 2
    2 Glover’sreference to cases concerning the collateral order doctrine is also
    unconvincing. In Citizens United Bank, N.A. v. Pearlstein, 
    733 F.2d 28
    , 29 (3d Cir.
    1984), we held that a denial of a motion to mark a money judgment as satisfied was
    appealable because it was “a final disposition of a claimed right independent of and
    4
    B.
    We also reject Glover’s argument that the District Court Order falls within the
    scope of the Rule 54(b) certification dismissing Udren. Br. of Appellant 25. In support of
    such certification, district courts must determine that an order is final and there is no just
    reason to delay appeal. Elliott v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 
    682 F.3d 213
    , 220 (3d Cir. 2012).
    Appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from a decision certified by the district court under
    Rule 54(b) does not include orders outside the scope of certification. Edwards v. Prime,
    Inc., 
    602 F.3d 1276
    , 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that only four of eleven dismissals
    were appealable because only those four were certified under Rule 54(b)).
    In its certification Order, the District Court stressed that Udren’s “claims are on a
    completely different track than the Wells Fargo claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26.” App. 8a.
    Contrary to Glover’s contention, the District Court’s certification did not contemplate
    broad discovery under Rule 26(a) from Udren related to the remaining defendants. The
    District Court certified the dismissal in part because Udren discovery under Rule 26 was
    to be separate. Accordingly, the District Court’s Order denying enforcement of Glover’s
    broad reading of the Stipulation is “outside the scope of certification” and is not a final
    decision. See United Indus., Inc. v. Eimco Process Equip. Co., 
    61 F.3d 445
    , 448 (5th Cir.
    1995) (holding that a discovery order not referenced in a Rule 54(b) certification was
    collateral to the underlying claim.” Unlike Pearlstein, Glover’s claimed right to the Udren
    documents is directly related to ongoing litigation and is not “independent of and
    collateral to” the underlying claim against the remaining defendants. In Border Co. v.
    Sylk, we observed an irresistible impulse of appellants to invoke exotic uses of the
    collateral order rule. 
    410 F.2d 843
    , 845-846 (3d Cir. 1969). We identify Glover’s appeal
    as such an invocation and note that “[o]ur overburdened courts have little time or appetite
    for such protractions.” 
    Id. at 846
    .
    5
    “outside the scope of certification” and, therefore, not appealable).
    Accordingly, the District Court’s Order is not a final, appealable decision and is
    beyond the scope of the Rule 54(b) certification. We have considered all arguments
    advanced by the parties and conclude that no further discussion is necessary. The appeal
    will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
    6