Appealing Florida’s Litigation Privileges
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
The case involved claims for defamation under Florida law. Some of the allegedly defamatory statements were made in connection with a lawsuit that the defendant had filed against various Florida government officials. In that lawsuit, as well as in letters the defendant’s lawyer had sent to some state officials, the defendant contended that the plaintiff was part of a criminal “enterprise.” The plaintiff sued the defendant for defamation. The defendant then invoked Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges, arguing that any defamatory statements were made in connection with litigation. The district court rejected those defenses, and the defendant appealed.
The Absolute Privilege
The Eleventh Circuit first held that denial of the absolute litigation privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. That doctrine deems an order final and appealable if (1) it conclusively resolves an issue, (2) involves an important issue that is separate from the merits, and (3) would be effectively unreviewable in an appeal from a final judgment. The denial of the absolute privilege was conclusive, as the district court had definitively resolved whether the defendant needed to face trial. The denial was also important—litigation privileges are necessary for the full airing and resolution of grievances—and separate from the merits—the defense does not engage with the action’s merits. Finally, because the absolute privilege is an immunity from suit, it must be vindicated before the case proceeds to a final judgment.
The Qualified Privilege
The qualified privilege was different. For one thing, the district court had rejected the defense due to genuine issues of fact, namely whether the defendant had acted with malice. So the rejection wasn’t conclusive. For the same reason, the issue was not separate from the merits—applying the defense required a finding as to the defendant’s mens rea. And the qualified privilege provides a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit. So it could be effectively reviewed after a final judgment.
No Pendant Appellate Jurisdiction
The Eleventh Circuit also declined to extend pendent appellate jurisdiction to the qualified-privilege denial. Without deciding whether the exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction was permissible, the court exercised its discretion to decline extending pendent appellate jurisdiction over the issue.
Grippa v. Rubin, 2025 WL 997347 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2025), available at the Eleventh Circuit 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
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.
Continue reading....
In McEvoy v. Diversified Energy Co., the Fourth Circuit dismissed a somewhat convoluted invocation of sovereign immunity. The defendants appealed to argue that a district court’s Rule 19 decision effectively denied a non-party’s sovereign immunity. But the defendant had never itself sought immunity. Nor had the actual immunity holder intervened to protect its interests. The […]
Continue reading....
In SEC v. EquityBuild, Inc., the Seventh Circuit heard an appeal from order approving the distribution of some—but not all—of the assets in a receivership proceeding. The order was appealable under the Seventh Circuit’s caselaw, which deemed these orders appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. Judge Easterbrook concurred to express doubt in this caselaw and suggest […]
Continue reading....
In Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic LLC, the Tenth Circuit held that denials of anti-SLAPP motions under Colorado law are not immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. The court drew an interesting line between appeals involving primarily legal issues—which can warrant immediate appeal—and those involving primarily factual issues—which don’t. The court explained that fact-heavy […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not. The case involved claims for defamation under Florida law. Some of the allegedly defamatory statements were […]
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....