Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.

1982-11-29

Headline: Filing an appeal while a post‑trial Rule 59 motion is pending has no effect; Court reverses the Third Circuit, bars the premature appeal, and sends the case back so a new notice can be filed after ruling.

Holding: The Court held that a notice of appeal filed before disposition of a timely Rule 59 motion is a nullity, deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction, and requires a new notice after the motion is decided.

Real World Impact:

Requires refiling appeals after a Rule 59 motion is decided.
Takes away appeals-court power to waive premature notices under Rule 2.
May create pitfalls for pro se litigants filing informal post‑judgment motions.

Topics: appeals procedure, post-judgment motions, appellate rules, consumer lending

Summary

Background

A group of borrowers sued a consumer finance company under the Truth in Lending Act and won summary judgment in the District Court. The district judge directed entry of final judgment, and the company filed a timely motion to alter or amend that judgment under Rule 59 (a post‑trial motion asking the court to change its decision). While that motion was still pending, the company filed a notice of appeal. The district court later denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals had already accepted and decided the appeal, reversing the district court.

Reasoning

The core question was whether a notice of appeal filed before the district court decided a timely Rule 59 motion has any legal effect. The Court said the 1979 amendments to the appellate rules, especially Rule 4(a)(4), make such a premature notice a nullity — it "shall have no effect" — and a new notice must be filed after the post‑trial motion is resolved. A notice of appeal normally gives the appeals court jurisdiction and takes certain control away from the district court, so treating premature notices as void prevents both courts from trying to act at once. The Court therefore reversed the Third Circuit and vacated the judgment.

Real world impact

Litigants who file appeals while a timely Rule 59 motion is pending cannot rely on that premature filing to start an appeal. Appeals courts lack jurisdiction from such filings, and parties must file a new notice after the district court rules. The decision is procedural and the case was sent back for further steps in line with the ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented, arguing the respondent had, in fact, provided adequate notice to the Court of Appeals after the district court denied the motion and that the Court should have allowed briefing before deciding whether Rule 2 discretion could save the appeal.