Procedural Rulings From Supreme Court's 2014-2015 Term

Although blockbuster rulings on the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage garnered the limelight in the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014-2015 term, the Supreme Court also addressed some more mundane procedural issues. Here are several opinions of interest to federal court practitioners.

Federal Tort Claim Act time limits are subject to equitable tolling. United States v. Wong, 135 S.Ct. 1625 (2014).

The Federal Tort Claims Act provides that a tort claim against the United States "shall be forever barred” unless the claimant meets two deadlines. First, a claim must be presented to the appropriate federal agency for administrative review "within two years after [the] claim accrues.” Second, if the agency denies the claim, the claimant must file suit in federal court "within six months” of the agency's denial. In this case, the claimant missed the filing deadline, but requested equitable tolling because she had a good reason for filing late. The district court dismissed her claim holding that, despite any justification for the delay, the time bar was jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court held that Federal Tort Claims Act time limits are subject to equitable tolling.

An order disposing of one of the discrete cases consolidated for multidistrict litigation pretrial proceedings qualifies as an appealable final decision. Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897 (2015).

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation established a multidistrict litigation for cases involving allegations that banks understated their borrowing costs, thereby depressing LIBOR and enabling banks to pay lower interest rates on financial instruments sold to investors. One of the consolidated actions raised the single claim that several banks, acting in concert, violated federal antitrust law. The district court granted the banks' motion to dismiss all antitrust claims. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court had not disposed of all claims in the consolidated actions. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the district court's order dismissing the antitrust complaint was a final decision appealable under 28 USC §1291, which gives the courts of appeal jurisdiction of appeals from "all final decisions of the district courts of the United States. The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)--which permits district courts to...