DOJ-OGR-00019621.jpg
566 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
566 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal by Maxwell. The argument is based on the 'final judgment rule' (28 U.S.C. § 1291), asserting that the order being appealed is not a final decision and does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. The document notes that the Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on similar grounds on September 16, 2020.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Giuffre | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case name 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
| Maxwell | Party in a lawsuit / Appellant |
Mentioned in the case name 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' and as the individual whose appeal is being discussed.
|
| Van Cauwenberghe | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988)'.
|
| Biard | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988)'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as having filed a motion to dismiss Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
|
| Courts of Appeals | Judicial body |
Mentioned in the context of its jurisdiction being limited by Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-09-16
The Government filed a motion to dismiss Maxwell’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and requested that the Court deny Maxwell’s motion for consolidation.
2d Cir.
Relationships (2)
They are opposing parties in the lawsuit 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
The Government filed a motion to dismiss Maxwell's appeal.
Key Quotes (3)
"Motion to Dismiss"Source
— The document (referring to the Government's motion)
(Used as a shorthand name for the Government's motion to dismiss Maxwell's appeal and deny consolidation.)
DOJ-OGR-00019621.jpg
Quote #1
"small class"Source
— The document (paraphrasing legal standard)
(Describing the type of decisions that constitute immediately appealable collateral orders, which Maxwell's Order allegedly does not fall into.)
DOJ-OGR-00019621.jpg
Quote #2
"final decisions of the district courts."Source
— Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291
(Quoted from the statute to define the jurisdictional limits of the Courts of Appeals.)
DOJ-OGR-00019621.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,374 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page14 of 37
8
with the appeal currently pending in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. (2d Cir. Dkt. 17). The Government is not a party to the appeal in Giuffre v. Maxwell, which concerns an order issued in a civil case unsealing materials that were previously filed under seal. On September 16, 2020, the Government filed a motion to dismiss Maxwell’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and requested that this Court deny Maxwell’s motion for consolidation (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (2d Cir. Dkt. 37).
ARGUMENT
POINT I
This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear This Appeal
As explained in the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, the final judgment rule precludes jurisdiction over Maxwell’s appeal of the Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Maxwell fails to explain how the Order falls within the “small class” of decisions that constitute immediately appealable collateral orders. See Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988). Accordingly, this Court should dismiss Maxwell’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
A. Applicable Law
Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291 expressly limits the jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals to “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “This final judgment rule requires that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal
DOJ-OGR-00019621
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document