Jennifer N. Kocher v. Dow Corning Corp. ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                         United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    _____________
    No. 97-2071
    _____________
    Jennifer N. Kocher; Darlene Kocher; *
    Carl Kocher;                        *
    *
    Appellants,            *
    *
    v.                           *
    * Appeal from the United States
    Dow Chemical Company;               * District Court for the
    E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company; * District of Minnesota
    *
    Appellees.             *
    _____________
    Submitted: November 18, 1997
    Filed: December 29, 1997
    _____________
    Before BOWMAN, LAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    _____________
    BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
    This lawsuit is one of many brought by plaintiffs throughout the United States
    against Dow Chemical, DuPont, and other defendants for injuries resulting from jaw
    implants called temporomandibular joint ("TMJ") implants. In these lawsuits both Dow
    Chemical and DuPont have enjoyed consistent success. In 1994, all the TMJ cases
    then pending in federal court were consolidated in the District of Minnesota. The
    District Court1 granted summary judgment for DuPont and Dow Chemical. This Court
    affirmed. See Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Recipients v. E.I. DuPont de
    Nemours & Co. (In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig.),
    
    97 F.3d 1050
    (8th Cir. 1996); Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Recipients v.
    Dow Chem. Co. (In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig.),
    
    113 F.3d 1484
    (8th Cir. 1997). The District Court also ordered that judgment be
    entered for DuPont and Dow Chemical in any subsequent "tag-along" TMJ cases that
    might come before it.
    On December 22, 1994, the plaintiff,2 Jennifer Kocher, sued Dow Chemical,
    DuPont, and several other defendants for injuries resulting from her TMJ implant. She
    sued them in Pennsylvania state court. On September 15, 1995, one of the defendants,
    Dow Corning, filed a notice of removal seeking to remove the claims against it to
    federal court. Federal jurisdiction was based on Dow Corning's bankruptcy. See 28
    U.S.C. § 1334 (1994). Dow Corning's notice of removal listed Kocher's claims against
    it and the other defendants' crossclaims against it, but it did not list Kocher's claims
    against the other defendants. The District Court for the Eastern District of
    Pennsylvania, apparently misreading the removal petition, took jurisdiction over all the
    claims in the case. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred the
    case to the District Court for the District of Minnesota, and on December 11, 1995, that
    court entered judgment for Dow Chemical and DuPont pursuant to its prior orders
    directing the entry of judgment in all tag-along TMJ cases. Kocher did not directly
    appeal the judgments but later moved to vacate the judgments under Federal Rule of
    Civil Procedure 60. The District Court denied the motion, and Kocher now appeals.
    We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the District of Minnesota.
    2
    The other plaintiffs, Darlene Kocher and Carl Kocher, are Jennifer Kocher's
    parents.
    -2-
    Before proceeding to Kocher's arguments we will address a preliminary question:
    do we have jurisdiction over this appeal? United States Courts of Appeals have
    jurisdiction over only "final decisions" of district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994). In
    this case the District Court has not issued a final order disposing of all the claims
    against all the parties. Instead the District Court granted summary judgment to Dow
    Chemical and DuPont but left unresolved Kocher's claims against the other defendants
    and the defendants' crossclaims against one another.3
    Generally an order must resolve all the claims of all the parties in order to
    constitute a final, appealable judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Rule 54(b) provides
    an exception to this principle: a district court "may direct the entry of a final judgment
    as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express
    determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for
    the entry of judgment." In this case, before Kocher's suit ever came to the District of
    Minnesota, the District Court entered judgment for both Dow Chemical and DuPont
    in the other TMJ cases then pending before it. The court entered these judgments as
    final judgments in accordance with Rule 54(b) and also ordered that judgment be
    entered for Dow Chemical and DuPont in any tag-along TMJ cases that later might be
    transferred to it. When Kocher's suit subsequently was transferred to the District of
    Minnesota, the District Court granted summary judgment for Dow Chemical and
    DuPont pursuant to these orders. We hold that the judgments for Dow Chemical and
    DuPont in this case satisfy Rule 54(b) because they were based on the 54(b) orders in
    the prior TMJ cases and thus unquestionably were intended to be final for purposes of
    appeal. We therefore have jurisdiction over this appeal. See United States v. Glenn,
    
    585 F.2d 366
    , 367 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1978) (holding that order could be appealed because,
    3
    The District Court has not addressed any of the claims against Dow Corning
    because they are subject to the automatic stay resulting from Dow Corning's
    bankruptcy.
    -3-
    "[a]lthough the district court did not make an express finding, there is no doubt that the
    district court intended its orders to be final judgments for purposes of appeal"); Kelly
    v. Lee's Old Fashioned Hamburgers, Inc., 
    908 F.2d 1218
    , 1220 (5th Cir. 1990) (en
    banc) (per curiam) ("Where . . . language in the order either independently or together
    with related parts of the record reflects the trial judge's clear intent to enter a partial final
    judgment under Rule 54(b), we consider the order appealable.").
    Having established our jurisdiction, we turn to Kocher's first argument, which is
    that the District Court wrongly denied her motion to vacate the judgments under Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). That rule authorizes courts to correct errors in judgments
    when those errors are the result of clerical mistakes. We review denials of Rule 60(a)
    motions for abuse of discretion. See Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 
    84 F.3d 1525
    ,
    1539 (8th Cir. 1996). Kocher contends that the judgments were the result of a clerical
    mistake because the notice of removal did not list her claims against Dow Chemical and
    DuPont, and those claims therefore never would have been in federal court but for an
    error of the federal court in Pennsylvania in reading the notice. The merit of this
    argument depends on the meaning of "clerical mistake."
    Under Rule 60(a) a court may correct a judgment "so as to reflect what was
    understood, intended and agreed upon by the parties and the court." United States v.
    Mansion House Ctr. N. Redev. Co., 
    855 F.2d 524
    , 527 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert.
    denied, 
    488 U.S. 993
    (1988). As said by the Second Circuit, Rule 60(a) "permits only
    a correction for the purpose of reflecting accurately a decision that the court actually
    made." Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 
    60 F.3d 74
    , 77 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In this
    case the District Court intentionally exercised jurisdiction over the claims against Dow
    Chemical and DuPont and intentionally granted them summary judgment. Nothing in
    the record suggests that the District Court intended not to enter these judgments. The
    judgments may have been inappropriate because of the mistaken reading of the removal
    notice in the federal court in Pennsylvania (an issue we need not and do not decide),
    -4-
    but they were not founded upon a clerical error of the District Court. The District Court
    did not abuse its discretion in denying Kocher's Rule 60(a) motion.
    Kocher next argues that the judgments were void for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction and that the District Court therefore erred by denying her motion to vacate
    the judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). "[R]elief from void
    judgments is not discretionary." Chambers v. Armontrout, 
    16 F.3d 257
    , 260 (8th Cir.
    1994). Under Rule 60(b)(4), a district court may vacate a void judgment. A party may
    not use a Rule 60(b)(4) motion as a substitute for a timely appeal. See Kansas City
    Southern Ry. Co. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp., 
    624 F.2d 822
    , 825 n.4 (8th Cir.) (en
    banc), cert. denied, 
    449 U.S. 955
    (1980). In other words, if a party fails to appeal an
    adverse judgment and then files a Rule 60(b)(4) motion after the time permitted for an
    ordinary appeal has expired, the motion will not succeed merely because the same
    argument would have succeeded on appeal. See 
    id. In this
    case Kocher did precisely
    what Kansas City Southern forbids. The District Court entered judgment for Dow
    Chemical and DuPont on December 11, 1995. Kocher did not appeal the judgments
    within the thirty days allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1). Instead
    she waited until July 31, 1996, and then filed her Rule 60 motion. Kocher maintains
    that she was not notified of the judgments until she received a letter informing her of
    them from counsel for Dow Chemical on May 29, 1996. The record suggests
    otherwise: three days after the District Court entered judgment against her, Kocher
    received a docket sheet noting the judgments. Even if Kocher is correct, however, she
    still used Rule 60(b)(4) as a substitute for a timely appeal. As we explained in Zimmer
    St. Louis, Inc. v. Zimmer Co., 
    32 F.3d 357
    , 360 (8th Cir. 1994), Federal Rule of
    Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) permits a party who did not receive timely notice of a
    judgment to file a motion to reopen the time to appeal for fourteen days; this motion
    must be filed within 180 days of the judgment or within seven days of receipt of notice
    of the judgment, whichever is earlier. This rule sets the limit on the extra time to appeal
    that a party may gain from lack of notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d); 
    Zimmer, 32 F.3d at 360
    . After receiving the letter from counsel for Dow Chemical, Kocher did
    -5-
    not file a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Instead she tarried
    over two months before filing her Rule 60 motion. That was far longer than the time she
    would have been allowed to appeal under Rule 4(a)(6) if she had filed a motion to
    reopen the time for appeal as that rule requires. Thus Kocher did employ Rule 60(b)(4)
    as a substitute for the timely appeal she never filed.
    Still, Kocher's Rule 60(b)(4) motion nevertheless may succeed, but not simply
    because the District Court lacked jurisdiction over her claims. Instead, the motion can
    succeed only if the absence of jurisdiction was so glaring as to constitute a "total want
    of jurisdiction" or a "plain usurpation of power" so as to render the judgment void from
    its inception. Kansas City 
    Southern, 624 F.2d at 825
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    The Second Circuit has explained that a judgment is not void for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction unless "no arguable basis" for jurisdiction existed. Nemaizer v. Baker, 
    793 F.2d 58
    , 65 (2d Cir. 1986) (citing Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No. 27, 
    453 F.2d 645
    , 649 (1st Cir. 1972)). Accordingly, we must determine whether an arguable
    basis for jurisdiction over Kocher's claims existed. Kocher contends that the District
    Court lacked jurisdiction for two reasons: 1) the notice of removal did not list the claims
    against parties other than Dow Corning and therefore those claims were not properly
    removed to federal court; and 2) those claims were not sufficiently related to Dow
    Corning's bankruptcy to give the District Court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334.
    One could plausibly argue that the District Court did have jurisdiction over the
    claims against Dow Chemical and DuPont despite the absence of those claims from the
    removal petition. In Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 
    117 S. Ct. 467
    , 471 (1996), the Supreme
    Court held that improper removal of a case "is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if
    federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered." In
    Caterpillar the removal was defective because complete diversity did not exist at the
    time the notice of removal was filed. Prior to trial, however, the nondiverse defendant
    dropped out of the suit, thus restoring complete diversity. The Court held that despite
    -6-
    the improper removal the judgment was not void, because the requirements of federal
    jurisdiction were fulfilled at the time of the trial and the judgment. In accordance with
    that holding, one could argue that the absence from the removal petition of Kocher's
    claims against DuPont and Dow Chemical means that the removal of those claims was
    merely improper and not a jurisdictional defect that would render the judgment void.
    In addition, in Caterpillar the Court observed that by the time of the appeal the case had
    already been tried and "considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy [had]
    become overwhelming." 
    Id. at 476.
    The same concerns are present in this case.
    Although Kocher's claims did not proceed to trial, the District Court adjudicated
    hundreds of analytically indistinguishable claims in the multidistrict litigation over which
    it presided in 1994 and 1995. In that litigation the court granted summary judgment for
    both Dow Chemical and DuPont. It entered judgment against Kocher pursuant to its
    prior orders. The need for finality militates in favor of allowing the District Court's
    decision to stand. For these reasons the District Court did have an arguable basis for
    jurisdiction over these claims even though they were not listed in the notice of removal.
    Kocher also contends that the District Court did not have jurisdiction under 28
    U.S.C. § 1334(b), which provides for federal jurisdiction over claims "related to" Title
    11 bankruptcy cases. One could argue to the contrary. Dow Corning filed for
    bankruptcy in 1995 and then removed Kocher's claims against it to federal court. The
    sole basis for federal jurisdiction over Kocher's claims was 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).
    DuPont and Dow Chemical argue that Kocher's claims against them were related to
    Dow Corning's bankruptcy because, if Kocher had prevailed, they could have sued Dow
    Corning for indemnification. A claim is "related to" a bankruptcy case within the
    meaning of § 1334(b) if it "could conceivably have any effect" on the bankruptcy estate.
    Abramowitz v. Palmer, 
    999 F.2d 1274
    , 1277 (8th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks
    omitted). In Lindsey v. O'brien (In re Dow Corning Corp.), 
    86 F.3d 482
    , 490 (6th Cir.
    1996), cert. denied, 
    117 S. Ct. 718
    (1997), which involved the breast implant litigation
    against Dow Corning and other defendants, the Sixth Circuit held that federal
    -7-
    jurisdiction did exist over the claims against the defendants other than Dow Corning
    because those claims were related to Dow Corning's bankruptcy. The court based its
    holding in part on the other defendants' potential indemnification claims against Dow
    Corning. See 
    id. at 490-94.
    Kocher's claims against Dow Chemical and DuPont bear
    precisely the same relation to Dow Corning's bankruptcy as did the plaintiffs' claims
    against the nondebtor defendants in In re Dow Corning Corp. Following the rationale
    of that decision, it is at least arguable that Kocher's claims against Dow Chemical and
    DuPont conceivably could affect Dow Corning's bankruptcy estate and thus are "related
    to" the bankruptcy case. Thus, for this reason also, we hold that the District Court did
    have an arguable basis for jurisdiction over Kocher's claims against Dow Chemical and
    DuPont, although we express no opinion as to whether the District Court was in fact
    correct to exercise jurisdiction over these claims. We conclude that the District Court
    correctly denied Kocher's Rule 60(b)(4) motion.
    Kocher's final argument is that the District Court wrongly denied her motion
    under Rule 60(b)(6), which authorizes courts to vacate judgments for "any other" proper
    reason. Kocher essentially repeats the arguments she makes under Rules 60(a) and
    60(b)(4). Rule 60(b)(6) cannot serve as a substitute for an ordinary appeal, even where
    a party did not receive timely notice of the judgment against her. See 
    Zimmer, 32 F.3d at 360
    -61. Because Kocher did not file a timely appeal from the judgments, this
    contention fails.
    We affirm the judgments for Dow Chemical and DuPont.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -8-