On June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held in Microsoft v. Baker, No. 15-457, that Federal Appellate Courts do not have jurisdiction under 28 USC §1291 to review the denial orders of class certification, as well as orders to strike the class certification, after plaintiffs voluntarily The defendants in the Microsoft case are owned by the Xbox 360 from Microsoft, who filed an alleged class action alleging a bug in the design of the device. The District Court dismissed the defendants’ class of allegations and the Court of Appeal refused to allow them to challenge an order under Article 23 (f), which authorizes “lenient” leniency orders from negative classes “the sole discretion of the Court of Appeal”. Then, instead of following individual claims for a final judgment on the merits of the case, the defendants set forth voluntary dismissal of their claims with prejudice, but the right to revive their claims were set aside if the Court of Appeal dismissed the court’s certificate of the province. After that, the appeals were resumed, posing a challenge only to the primordial system that had damaged their class claims. The Ninth Circuit considered that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under paragraph 1291. It was then argued that the Court’s reasoning to reject the accused complaints was unacceptable, but refused to say whether the degree certificate was inappropriate for a different reason and left that question reinstated by the District Court. Abolish the Supreme Court and set out four rules for its decision. First, §1291, which empowers the federal appeals courts to review only “final decisions” that maintains the balance between the trial and the appellate courts, minimizes the harassment and delay that will result from repeated interlocutory appeals and enhances the efficiency of the administration of justice. Attempts to secure appeals from negative certification orders weaken the principle of purpose and avoid its objectives. Second, the tactic of voluntary dismissal of the accused has only exacerbated the problem because it calls for protracted litigation and partial appeals: according to the defendants’ theory, the decision whether the immediate appeal rests with the plaintiff, you should only reject your claims with prejudice to challenge A local court order that denies a degree certificate. You can exercise this option more than once, interrupting the District Court proceedings with a preliminary appeal again, if the court rejects the degree certificate in a different field. Third, the theory of accused allows review of preliminary orders a random appeal, which would undermine the discretionary system of Article 23 (f). The court dismissed the defendants’ argument that Article 23 (f) was irrelevant to the case relating to the final judgment, stating that the plaintiffs in the alleged proceedings can not divert the attempt to arrange the bar in final judgment in the meaning of § 1291 simply reject their claims with prejudices. Fourth, the defendants promote voluntary redundancy device unilateral conclusion of the court that the tactic allows only plaintiffs and defendants never, the force of instant appeal to the negative ruling certificate. However, the “class issue” can be very important to the defendants, because the certificate can force the defendants to settle.
The judge delivered the opinion of Ginsburg Court, which joined Kennedy, Prairie, Sotomayor and Kagan judges. Judge Thomas gave a concurring opinion in the judgment to which Judge Roberts and Judge Alito had joined. Judge Gorsuch did not participate in the case or decide on the case.