SCOTUS Raises an Interesting Question for Appeals in Consolidated Cases in Wisconsin

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided unanimously that, when cases are consolidated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), they nevertheless remain separate cases. In Hall v. Hall, No. 16-1150, two separate cases had been consolidated and were tried together to a jury, but the district court granted a new trial in one of the cases and entered a final judgment in the other. After the losing party in the decided case took an appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, because of the consolidation, the judgment appealed from was not a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court reviewed the history of consolidation in federal practice, beginning with a statute enacted in 1813, which remained in effect in some form until replaced by Rule 42(a) in 1937. It concluded from the cases interpreting the statute that consolidation was not intended to effect a merger of the consolidated cases. Relying largely on that history to determine the meaning of the undefined word “consolidate” in the rule (“the court may . . . consolidate the actions”), the Court decided that consolidated cases are not merged into a single action and that a party aggrieved by the judgment entered in one of the cases may appeal, although there will be further proceedings in the other case. And, indeed, though the issue did not arise in Hall, failure to take a timely appeal from the judgment would preclude taking an appeal from that judgment later, when the “rest of the case” comes to an end.

One question that Hall raises for Wisconsin practitioners is whether our courts would come to the same conclusion with respect to cases consolidated under our rule, Wis. Stat. § 805.05(1)(a). Like § 1291, Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1) limits appeals of right to “final” judgments or orders that “dispose[] of the entire matter in litigation.” [Unlike the federal statute, our rule permits/requires appeal from an order or judgment that disposes of the entire matter “as to one or more of the parties,” but a consolidation situation like that in Hall may well not meet that exception.] Our rule likewise does not define “consolidate,” and, even though much of its language is taken from Rule 42(a), our rule, too, was adopted after over 100 years of practice under prior statutes. Accordingly, it remains to be seen whether a final judgment or order in a case consolidated with another which continues in the circuit court may/must be appealed within the time prescribed under Wis. Stat. § 808.04(1). Prudence would suggest, however, that an aggrieved litigant should assume that Wisconsin will follow Hall and take a timely appeal from the first judgment entered.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.