## Facts

- Xbox 360 owners alleged the console was defectively designed because it scratched game discs during normal operation.
- An earlier federal putative class action alleging the same defect was denied class certification due to predominance of individualized issues; the Ninth Circuit declined discretionary review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), and the case settled.
- In 2011, Baker and others filed a new putative class action alleging the same defect in the same district.
- The district court granted Microsoft’s motion to strike the class allegations (functionally a denial of class certification), relying on comity and declining to treat intervening circuit authority as changing the prior result.
- Plaintiffs sought Rule 23(f) interlocutory review of the class ruling; the Ninth Circuit denied the petition.
- Plaintiffs then stipulated to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of their individual claims, expressly to obtain an appealable judgment limited to the class ruling while abandoning individual relief.
- The district court entered judgment on the stipulation; the Ninth Circuit held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reversed the order striking the class allegations.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1291 permits appellate review of an order denying class certification (or striking class allegations) after named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice solely to obtain a “final decision” for appeal.
2. Whether such a voluntary-dismissal tactic is consistent with the final-judgment rule and the discretionary interlocutory review scheme of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).
3. Whether, after a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, Article III permits the plaintiffs to pursue an appeal of only the class ruling.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that courts of appeals lack jurisdiction under § 1291 to review a class-certification denial (or striking of class allegations) when plaintiffs manufacture finality by voluntarily dismissing their individual claims with prejudice after Rule 23(f) review is denied.
- A five-Justice majority reasoned from § 1291’s final-judgment rule and the structure of Rule 23(f).
- A concurrence in the judgment would have resolved the case on Article III grounds, concluding the plaintiffs eliminated any live case or controversy by dismissing with prejudice.
- Justice Gorsuch did not participate.

## Legal Principles

- Class-certification orders are interlocutory and generally not immediately appealable under § 1291.
- Rule 23(f) supplies a discretionary mechanism for interlocutory appellate review of class-certification decisions; denial of a Rule 23(f) petition does not permit parties to create an alternative appeal route by procedural stipulation.
- A stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice entered solely to obtain appellate review of an interlocutory class ruling does not produce the type of “final decision” § 1291 contemplates.
- Allowing plaintiffs to self-create appellate jurisdiction would distort the final-judgment rule, encourage piecemeal appeals, and create asymmetry by giving plaintiffs a unilateral path to immediate review unavailable to defendants.
- (Concurrence) Voluntary dismissal with prejudice may extinguish the plaintiffs’ personal stake, leaving no Article III case or controversy to support an appeal.

## Conclusion

The Court barred putative class plaintiffs from converting an adverse class-certification ruling into an appealable final judgment by voluntarily dismissing their own claims with prejudice after Rule 23(f) review is denied, reinforcing Rule 23(f) as the primary pre-judgment review mechanism and preserving the limits of § 1291 appellate jurisdiction.


Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23 (2017)