Firefighters' Retmnt Sys, et al v. Citco Grp Ltd.,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30165

FIREFIGHTERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM; MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF LOUISIANA; NEW ORLEANS
FIREFIGHTERS’ PENSION & RELIEF FUND,

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

CITCO GROUP LIMITED; CITCO FUND SERVICES (CAYMAN ISLANDS),
LIMITED; CITCO BANKING CORPORATION, N.V.,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and HO, Circuit Judges.
JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge:
As this court recently reaffirmed, “there is no final decision if a plaintiff
voluntarily dismisses a defendant without prejudice, because the plaintiff ‘is
entitled to bring a later suit on the same cause of action.’” Williams v. Taylor
Seidenbach, Inc., 958 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (quoting Ryan v.
Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 1978)). We also
observed that, under Rule 54(b), “in a suit against multiple defendants, there
is no final decision as to one defendant until there is a final decision as to all
defendants.” Id.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-30165 Document: 00515479728 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2020

No. 19-30165
2
Those principles control this case. Here, a group of Louisiana pension
funds sued various defendants for their alleged involvement in a Ponzi scheme.
The district court later entered summary judgment for a set of defendants—
the Citco Group and various related entities. To appeal that decision, the
Funds voluntarily dismissed one defendant without prejudice and then
resolved all remaining claims either by settlement or default judgment.
The only difference between this case and Williams is the order of
dismissals after the adverse decision. In Williams, the voluntary dismissal
without prejudice disposed of all remaining defendants in the case. 958 F.3d
at 344. Here, the Funds voluntarily dismissed one defendant without prejudice
and then adjudicated their claims against other defendants. But that is a
distinction without a difference. The Funds sought to render an interlocutory
decision appealable by dismissing at least one defendant without prejudice.
And under Williams, that means—absent some further act like a Rule 54(b)
certification—there is no final, appealable decision. See id. at 343.
1

We dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction.

1
Because the dismissal without prejudice in this case occurred after the order the
Funds seek to appeal, we do not decide how Williams and Ryan would apply where the
dismissal occurred before the adverse, interlocutory order. See Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168
F.3d 1257, 1265–66 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding that there was a final decision in such a
case). For that reason, this decision does not create a split with the Eleventh Circuit—and
may explain why the Funds did not cite Schoenfeld in arguing that appellate jurisdiction
exists here.
Case: 19-30165 Document: 00515479728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2020