City of Burnsville v. Koppers, Inc., No. 21-3313 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Several cities in Minnesota alleged that a chemical in refined coal tar that was used in pavement sealants contaminated their stormwater ponds. They filed an action seeking damages from refiners and manufacturers of the tar. The “refiner” defendants take raw coal tar and refine it into a product used by the “manufacturer” defendants to create pavement sealants. The district court dismissed all of the claims against the refiners and dismissed all but three of the claims against the manufacturers. The Cities moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for entry of final judgment against the refiners. The district court, however, denied the motion because the Cities had not “demonstrated a danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.” The Cities then entered into an agreement with the manufacturers, which provided that the Cities would conditionally dismiss their claims against the manufacturers. The Cities then appealed the district court’s decision dismissing claims against the refiners, and some of the refiners cross-appealed.
The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that this conditional dismissal of the Cities’ claims against the manufacturers does not create a final decision under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. The whole purpose of pairing the voluntary dismissal with the tolling agreement was to provide for reinstatement of the claims in the event of reversal—that is, to make the dismissal conditional. The court wrote that its only power to prevent the manipulation of appellate jurisdiction is a rigorous application of the final judgment requirement.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Kelly and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Several Minnesota cities filed this suit alleging the defendants who refined coal tar ("refiners") or used the refined coal tar to make asphalt sealer ("manufacturers") had contaminated the cities' stormwater ponds. The district court dismissed all of the claims against the refiner defendants and most of the claims against the manufacturers; the cities then filed a Rule 54(b) motion for entry of final judgment against the refiners, but the district court denied the motion based on its finding that the cities had not shown a danger of hardship or injustice unless an immediate appeal was granted; the cities then entered into an agreement to dismiss their remaining claims against the manufacturers on the condition that if this court were to reverse the district court's dismissal of the claims against the refiner defendants, the cities could reinstate their claim against the manufacturers, and the statute of limitations would be tolled. Held: this conditional dismissal of the cities' claims against the manufacturers did not create a final decision under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Kelly, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.