Talamini v. Allstate Insurance Company, 84-18

• Citation: 105 S.Ct. 1824,85 L.Ed.2d 125,470 U.S. 1067
• Decision Date: 25 March 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-18,84-18
• Parties: Florence TALAMINI, Administratrix of Estate of John A. Talamini v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
• Court: United States Supreme Court

470 U.S. 1067

105 S.Ct. 1824

85 L.Ed.2d 125

Florence TALAMINI, Administratrix of Estate of John A. Talamini

v ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 84-18

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 1985

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Justice STEVENS, with whom Justice BRENNAN, Justice MARSHALL, and Justice BLACKMUN join, concurring.

Appellant filed a two-count complaint against appellee seeking to recover damages under two Pennsylvania statutes.¹ The Dis- trict Court granted a motion to dismiss Count II and appellant tried to appeal from that order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal, presumably because the District Court's dismissal of only one count of the complaint was not a final order. Appellant has invoked our appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254, arguing that Pennsylvania courts would treat the District Court's dismissal as a final order and that the federal courts should also treat the dismissal as final under the collateral-order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). I find no merit to that argument and agree that the appeal should be dismissed; treating it as a petition for a writ of certiorari, the petition should be denied.

Appellee filed a nine-page motion to dismiss or affirm in which it correctly pointed out that a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court order dismissing less than all of the claims alleged in a complaint unless the district court has made the express determination that Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires.² In the concluding section of its printed motion, appellee requests the Court to award it "double costs and attorneys fees incurred." ³ Because three Members of the Court have expressed the opinion that the request should be treated as a formal motion and that it should be granted "to the extent of awarding appellee $1,000 against Bruce Martin Ginsburg, Esq., appellant's counsel, pursuant to this Court's Rule 49.2," post, at 1073, it is appropriate to explain briefly why the request should be denied.⁴

Appellee is entirely correct in pointing to the jurisdictional defect in this appeal. Moreover, it is a defect that competent counsel should readily recognize. Nevertheless, this procedural error is one that has been frequently overlooked by a large number of experienced attorneys and judges in other cases.⁵ It is not the kind of egregious error that may properly provide the basis for sanctions against an attorney. There are, moreover, two additional reasons why it would be unwise judicial administration to grant a motion of this kind.

Because of the large number of applications for review that are regularly filed in this Court, the public interest in the efficient administration of our docket requires that we minimize the time devoted to the disposition of applications that are plainly without merit.⁶ Any evenhanded attempt to determine which of the unmeritorious applications should give rise to sanctions, and which should merely be denied summarily, would be a time-consuming and unrewarding task. It would require us either to adopt a procedure for assessing a fair compensatory damages award in par- ticular cases, or to impose a somewhat arbitrary penalty whenever such a motion is granted. Unless there has been a gross abuse of the judicial process, or demonstrable and significant harm to a litigant, such action is unwarranted.⁷

Of greater importance than the practical problems associated with the processing of motions of this kind is the symbolic significance of the action that THE CHIEF JUSTICE proposes. Freedom of access to the courts is a cherished value in our democratic society. Incremental changes in settled rules of law often result from litigation.⁸ The courts provide the mechanism for the peaceful resolution of disputes that might otherwise give rise to attempts at self-help. There is, and should be, the strongest presumption of open access to all levels of the judicial system. Creating a risk that the invocation of the judicial process may give rise to punitive sanctions simply because the litigant's claim is unmeritorious could only deter the legitimate exercise of the right to seek a peaceful redress of grievances through judicial means.⁹ This Court, above all, should uphold the principle of open access.

This is not, of course, to suggest that courts should tolerate gross abuses of the judicial process. If there is reason to believe that counsel have pursued unmeritorious litigation merely in order to generate fees for themselves, for example, judges should bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate disciplinary authorities.¹⁰ Or if it appears that unmeritorious litigation has been prolonged merely for the purposes of delay, with no legitimate prospect of success, an award of double costs and damages occasioned by the delay may be appropriate.¹¹ But the strong presumption is against the imposition of sanctions for invoking the processes of the law.

If the Court has treated appellee's request as a motion under our Rule 49.2, the Court has correctly denied the motion.

Justice WHITE, believing that there is no final judgment to review, would dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Justice POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Chief Justice BURGER, with whom Justice REHNQUIST and Justice O'CONNOR join.

I agree that we should dismiss this appeal, but I would go beyond that. This appeal is an attempt to invoke the Court's jurisdiction on an utterly frivolous claim. Such efforts should subject the attorney who filed the jurisdictional statement to the sanction of Rule 49.2 of this Court,^* at least where, as here, the appellee has moved for an award of costs and fees.

Appellant, the administratrix of her husband's estate, filed a complaint in state court seeking insurance benefits from appellee. Count I of the complaint sought benefits under Pennsylvania's No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 40, §§ 1009.101-.701 (Purdon Supp.1984-1985) (repealed 1984). Count II alleged that appellee had violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Insurance Practices Act, id., § 1171.1 et seq., and sought statutory penalties under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 73, § 201-9.2 (Purdon Supp. 1984-1985).

Appellee removed the suit to Federal District Court based on the parties' diversity of citizenship. On appellee's motion, the District Court dismissed Count II for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, holding that the Pennsylvania laws upon which appellant relied do not provide any private right of action. Appellant immediately appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals granted appellee's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the District Court decision was not a final judgment and that the Court of Appeals thus lacked jurisdiction. Appellant then filed a jurisdictional statement with this Court, asserting that the Court of Appeals' dismissal of her appeal was erroneous and a violation of due process.

The Court of Appeals' action was unquestionably correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 54(b). Not only is appellant's appeal to this Court completely frivolous on the merits, but also her attempt to bring the case here by way of appeal is totally improper; appellate jurisdiction is plainly lacking. See 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2).

Appellee has moved for an award of costs and fees for its expense in responding to this frivolous appeal. We afforded appellant the opportunity to respond to this motion; appellant's response provided nothing to meet the claim that the appeal is demonstrably frivolous. I would grant the motion to the extent of awarding appellee $1,000 against Bruce Martin Ginsburg, Esq., appellant's counsel, pursuant to this Court's Rule 49.2.

It is suggested that two objectives justify the Court's refusal to apply Rule 49.2 in this and similar cases: (a) efficient use of the Court's time, and (b) affirmance of the principle of free access to the courts. Both objectives unquestionably are commendable, but the perspective is too narrow. Judicious use of the sanction of Rule 49.2 in egregious cases—and this is an egregious case—should discourage many of the patently meritless applications that are filed here each year. In the long run, this is the more effective way to "minimize the time devoted to the disposition of applications that are plainly without merit," ante, at 1069; after all, that is the whole purpose of Rule 49.2. Further, while freedom of access to the courts is indeed a cherished value, every misuse of any court's time impinges on the right of other litigants with valid or at least arguable claims to gain access to the judicial process. The time this Court expends examining and processing frivolous applications is very substantial, and it is time that could be devoted to considering claims which merit consideration.

Rule 49.2 has a purpose which has too long been ignored; it is time we applied it. I would apply it here.

1 Count I sought recovery under Pennsylvania's No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 40, §§ 1009.101-1009.701 (Purdon Supp.1984-1985) (repealed 1984). Count II sought recovery under Pennsylvania's Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 40, §§ 1171.1-1171.15, and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 73, § 201-9.2 (Purdon Supp.1984-1985). The complaint was originally filed in the state court and removed by appellee to the Federal District Court because of the parties' diverse citizenship.

2 Rule 54(b), entitled "Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties," provides:

"When...