New Cert Petition on Derivative Sovereign Immunity Appeals
A new cert petition asks whether the denial of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
Derivative sovereign immunity (also sometimes referred to as the Yearsly doctrine) is a defense that government contractors sometimes raise to defeat claims stemming from work the contractors did for the government. The courts of appeals have split on whether a denial of that defense is immediately appealable.
I’ve covered a few of those decisions in prior roundups. Among them is the Sixth Circuit’s decision in ACT, Inc. v. Worldwide Interactive Network, Inc., which I thought focused too much whether a defense is an immunity and overlooked the rest of the collateral-order doctrine. There’s also the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Childs v. San Diego Family Housing LLC, in which the court said that the interests protected by derivative sovereign immunity aren’t sufficiently important to be effectively unreviewable in normal post-final-judgment appeal. And then there’s the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Menocal v. GEO Group, Inc., from which this petition stems. I think the Tenth Circuit’s decision is particularly interesting, as the court said that the defense is not sufficiently separate from the merits to be appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
The case is GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The response is due February 18, 2025. Also of note, the Supreme Court denied cert on this issue a few years ago.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal, (Jan. 13, 2025), available at the Supreme Court and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....