CA1: Certification of pre-judgment bond after bankruptcy was improper

Lee-Barnes v. Puerto Ven Quarry, No. 06-2581.  This District Court certified an issue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).  The First Circuit doesn’t want to be bothered.

The defendant had posted a bond to avoid a pre-judgment attachment.  Then the defendants filed for bankruptcy.  The District Court entered a dismissal, which indicated that they could refile when the bankruptcy petition was completed.  The District Court then declared the bond invalid and entered an opinion and order declaring the bond null.  The plaintiff didn’t like that, and asked the court to certify the issue.  The District Court agreed.

The First doesn’t like that.  It says that because the bonding company isn’t a party to the action (it never intervened and it appeared via a “special appearance”), it doesn’t really have jurisdiction.  Therefore, “Rather than resolving a cause of action set forth in a pleading, the district court’s order exclusively pertained to the validity of the bond. Because the district court’s order fails to meet either Rule 54(b)’s “party” or “claim” requirement, our analysis need not go further.”  Hence, the certification was an abuse of discretion.

But, it might be a collateral order.  However, it isn’t, because “The issue presented in this case is highly unlikely to affect, or even be consequential to, anyone aside from the parties.”