## Facts

- Numerous plaintiffs brought coordinated products-liability suits in federal court in New York alleging injuries from diethylstilbestrol (DES), a drug marketed by many manufacturers and often impossible to trace to a specific producer.
- Deborah Ashley and Andrew Ashley sued multiple DES manufacturers, including Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleged to be a successor to a California DES manufacturer with minimal New York contacts.
- Boehringer moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, challenging the application of New York substantive law (including market-share liability principles) and related constitutional limits.
- The district court denied Boehringer’s motion to dismiss, concluding it could exercise personal jurisdiction and apply New York substantive law.
- The district court denied Boehringer’s request to certify the jurisdiction and choice-of-law rulings for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- Plaintiffs later settled with other defendants and did not continue prosecuting their claims against Boehringer.
- The district court entered a final judgment dismissing the Ashleys’ complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

## Issues

1. Whether a party that obtained a final judgment in its favor may appeal to obtain review of earlier adverse interlocutory rulings embedded in the litigation history.
2. Whether speculative exposure to issue preclusion in other pending cases supplies standing to appeal despite a favorable final judgment.
3. Whether interlocutory determinations on personal jurisdiction and applicable substantive law can have collateral estoppel effect when the final judgment rests on failure to prosecute.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit dismissed Boehringer’s appeal for lack of standing.
- Because Boehringer obtained a dismissal with prejudice, it received all relief it sought in the action and was not aggrieved by the judgment.
- The court held the earlier interlocutory rulings did not create an appealable injury where they were not essential to the final judgment and carried no collateral estoppel consequence.
- The court refused to permit an appeal that would function as advisory review of issues rendered immaterial by the favorable final disposition.

## Legal Principles

- A prevailing party generally lacks standing to appeal a judgment in its favor; appellate jurisdiction requires that the appellant be aggrieved by the judgment.
- Appellate review targets judgments, not discrete interlocutory rulings, absent a recognized basis for immediate review.
- Collateral estoppel requires that the issue was actually litigated and determined and was essential to the prior judgment.
- Interlocutory determinations that are not necessary to a final judgment (such as a dismissal for failure to prosecute) do not support issue preclusion and therefore do not supply standing to appeal.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that a defendant who secured a dismissal with prejudice could not appeal solely to challenge adverse interlocutory rulings on jurisdiction and applicable law, because the defendant was not aggrieved by the final judgment and faced no issue-preclusion consequences from rulings that were not essential to that judgment.


In re DES Litigation, 7 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 1993)