Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P., et al. v. Perry Cline, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 20-7064, 20-7072 · judgment November 1, 2021
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a business petitioner, and a Tenth Circuit decision below.
Question presented
Sunoco is caught between a rock and a hard place. It is saddled with a $155 million class-action damages award that it very much wishes to appeal but firmly believes is not yet final. The district court that issued that award, by contrast, insists that it has issued a final order that is appealable and ripe for execution. That dynamic is hardly unprecedented, and should have been unproblematic. Sunoco responded by doing what parties faced with similar dilemmas have been doing for decades: It filed a protective appeal asking the Tenth Circuit to resolve the finality dispute pursuant to its jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, while preserving and articulating Sunoco’s view that the order appealed was not final. The first time Sunoco did so, the Tenth Circuit agreed in full: It resolved the finality dispute, agreeing with Sunoco that the order was not final, and dismissed the appeal. Yet when Sunoco filed later protective appeals preserving and asserting its view that the district court’s efforts to fix the finality problem failed, the Tenth Circuit inexplicably broke from established practice and refused to address finality. Instead, it held that by preserving and asserting its view that the orders were non-final, Sunoco failed to satisfy its “burden” to establish appellate jurisdiction. As a result, Sunoco is unable to appeal orders that it believes in good faith are non-final (but the district court views as final and subject to execution) precisely because it believes in good faith they are not final. The question presented is: Whether a court of appeals can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction—and
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Paul D. Clement
Clement & Murphy, PLLC
For respondent
Russell S. Post
Beck Redden LLP
Proceedings
- Oct 03 2022Petition DENIED.
- Sep 08 2022Application (22A188) denied by Justice Gorsuch.
- Sep 07 2022Reply of applicant Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P., et al. filed.
- Sep 06 2022Response to application from respondent Perry Cline filed.
- Aug 31 2022Letter filed.
- Aug 30 2022Response to application (22A188) requested by Justice Gorsuch, due September 6, 2022, at Noon (EDT).
- Aug 29 2022Application (22A188) for a stay, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.
- Aug 03 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
- Aug 03 2022Reply of petitioners Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P., et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jul 15 2022Brief of respondent Perry Cline in opposition filed.
- Jun 07 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 15, 2022.
- Jun 06 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 16, 2022 to July 15, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
- May 17 2022Response Requested. (Due June 16, 2022)
- May 10 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/26/2022.
- May 02 2022Waiver of right of respondent Perry Cline to respond filed.
- Apr 28 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 1, 2022)
- Mar 21 2022Application (21A440) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until April 28, 2022.
- Mar 17 2022Application (21A440) to extend further the time from March 30, 2022 to April 28, 2022, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.
- Feb 23 2022Application (21A440) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until March 30, 2022.
- Feb 17 2022Application (21A440) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 27, 2022 to March 30, 2022, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.