Arbitration, Immunity & the Collateral-Order Doctrine
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.
Simplying a bit, Ashley involved a former hospital employee’s suit against a hospital and the county that owned the hospital. The hospital moved to compel arbitration under the plaintiff’s contract. And the county moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on governmental-immunity grounds.
Despite the county’s never seeking arbitration or even being a party to the plaintiff’s contract, the district court ordered that the plaintiff’s claims against both defendants proceed to arbitration. The county then appealed, arguing that it was wrongly ordered to participate in arbitration and that the claims against it should have been dismissd on immunity grounds.
The Fifth Circuit noted a tension in its appellate jurisdiction. Denials of governmental immunities are often immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. The county had effectively been denied immunity and normally could appeal. But 9 U.S.C. § 16(b) generally bars appeals from many decisions ordering arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Given the district court district court had ordered arbitration, § 16(b)(2) seemed to bar the appeal.
The Fifth Circuit resolved this tension by explaining that it was not reviewing the propriety of the arbitration order. The court of appeals would instead address the decisional-sequencing issue: did the district court need to resolve the immunity defense before ordering arbitration? But the Fifth Circuit did not decide immunity in the first instance. It instead remanded the case for the district court to address it in the first instance.
Ashley v. Clay County, 2025 WL 64013 (5th Cir. Jan. 10, 2025), available at the Fifth 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
The Supreme Court granted cert in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The case asks if defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of derivative sovereign immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I wrote about the petition and the underlying circuit split earlier this year. And I wrote about the Tenth Circuit decision from which the petition stems […]
Continue reading....
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.
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 Hines v. Stamos (no PDF currently available), the Fifth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review a personal-jurisdiction defense as part of an arbitration appeal. But the discussion was entirely unnecessary. The district court had never ruled on the personal-jurisdiction defense, meaning that there was no order to review. And the panel […]
Continue reading....
In Smith v. Spizzirri, the Supreme Court held that district courts must stay—not dismiss—an action if the district court orders arbitration and a party requests a stay. The decision resolves a long-standing split over the ability to dismiss actions after ordering arbitration. The decision also has implications for appellate jurisdiction. As I’ve explained on this […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
May saw several decisions on effective injunction denials. One of those decisions raised an interesting question about the Supreme Court’s test for when a district court order effective denies a preliminary injunction. In other developments, the Fifth Circuit sat en banc to jettison its rule barring review of waiver-based remands. Other decisions addressed the finality […]
Continue reading....
In Heidi Group, Inc.v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of federal and state immunities but declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over other issues. In the course of doing so, one judge questioned the collateral-order doctrine’s application to state immunities, and the entire court questioned the doctrine of […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court granted cert in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The case asks if defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of derivative sovereign immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I wrote about the petition and the underlying circuit split earlier this year. And I wrote about the Tenth Circuit decision from which the petition stems […]
Continue reading....
Injunction appeals have been in the spotlight of late. We’ve seen a few recent decisions on appeals from temporary restraining orders. And this month has already produced three cases involving effective denials of preliminary injunctions. One of these cases raised a question about the test for effective—and thus appealable—injunction denials. Under the Supreme Court’s decision […]
Continue reading....
In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) does not bar review of waiver-based remands. In so holding, the court overruled its decision in In re Weaver.
Continue reading....