Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureAdministrative closingRule 14 impleaderRule 18 joinderSummary judgmentNotice of appealadministrative closingfinal judgment

Facts

In 1987, the Farm Street Trust borrowed $2.8 million from First Mutual Bank for Savings to purchase property, and beneficiaries Barry Lehman and Stuart Roffman each personally guaranteed the note; Lehman also pledged two parcels of real estate as collateral. After the Trust defaulted, the bank foreclosed on Lehman's properties, and Lehman sued the bank alleging that Roffman had fraudulently introduced a sham investor and that the bank negligently failed to exercise due diligence. After the bank failed, the FDIC became receiver, removed the case to federal court, and filed a third-party complaint against Roffman seeking indemnification, contribution, and recovery on Roffman's guaranty for the unpaid loan balance. The district court later reopened the administratively closed case, denied Roffman's motion to strike the third-party complaint, and entered summary judgment on the guaranty claim.

Issue

Whether the district court erred by reopening a case that had been administratively closed, permitting the FDIC to implead Roffman under Rule 14(a) and join an independent guaranty claim under Rule 18(a), granting summary judgment on that guaranty claim, and allowing substitution of Revolution Portfolio LLC after the notice of appeal.

Rule

An administrative closing merely removes a case from the active docket and does not constitute a final adjudication; therefore, the court may later reactivate the case in its discretion without invoking Rule 60(b). Under Rule 14(a), a district court may allow impleader when the third-party plaintiff asserts a colorable claim that the nonparty is or may be liable for all or part of the plaintiff's claim, so long as impleader does not unduly delay or prejudice the case. Once a party is properly impleaded, Rule 18(a) allows joinder of independent claims against that party, subject only to ordinary jurisdiction, venue, and procedural management. A notice of appeal must specify the order being appealed, and failure to designate a later order deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a contract suit pending in federal court in Boston, the judge enters an order stating that the case is "dismissed without prejudice to restoration after related probate proceedings conclude" so counsel need not attend status conferences. The clerk closes the file, but no separate final judgment is entered. Two years later, the judge reactivates the case on his own initiative after discovering a pending crossclaim was never resolved.

Which is the strongest argument that the reactivation was proper?

Explanation. An order that merely removes a case from the active docket without finally adjudicating it is an administrative closing, not a final judgment. The district court retains authority to restore such a case either on a party's application or on its own initiative, and Rule 60(b)'s deadlines do not govern because there is no final judgment to set aside. (Derived from Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC (n.d.).)