Skip to Content

Appeal it All! Guarding Against Multiple, Independent Grounds


You’ve identified a killer issue for appeal, no doubt a winner. Congratulations! You still lose. How can that be?

In Novum Structures, LLC v. Choate Construction Company, Inc., 698 Fed. Appx. 608 (11th Cir. 2017), the Eleventh Circuit reiterated the rule that where a district court judgment is based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince the appellate court that every stated ground for the adverse judgment is incorrect.

There, a general contractor sought indemnification from a subcontractor for broken window panes and, after arbitration, was awarded damages. After learning about more broken window panes, the general contractor demanded more damages, and the sub filed a declaratory judgment action in district court, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata. The general contractor counterclaimed.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied the subcontractor’s motion based on res judicata, but also granted the general contractor’s motion based on breach of contract and indemnification. The subcontractor only appealed the denial of its motion based on res judicata, and its initial brief only addressed that issue. Not until its reply brief did the subcontractor argue that the arbitration award had preclusive effect for “every type of claim.”

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the subcontractor had abandoned any challenge to the grant of summary judgment based on breach of contract, and had waived its argument regarding the preclusive effect of the arbitration award on the breach claim by failing to raise it in the initial brief. 


Don’t miss the forest for the trees. Some rulings are undoubtedly the critical ones for purposes of appeal. However, appellate courts will examine all of the stated grounds for that ruling in deciding the case. As such, it behooves appellate counsel to demonstrate how none of the stated grounds for a ruling supports affirmance. Otherwise, you could end up losing, despite being absolutely correct on all the issues raised in the initial brief.

©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.