Preemption Issues & the Scope of § 1292(b)
In In re Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash, the Seventh Circuit reviewed a preemption issue as part of a certified appeal that concerned the right to a jury trial. The district court had thought that only the jury-trial issue warranted an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). But the Seventh Circuit concluded that the preemption decision was part of the same order and thus also within the scope of the certified appeal. After all, the right to a jury trial turned on the extent to which federal law preempted the plaintiffs’ state law claims.
The Order (or Orders?) in Lion Air
Lion Air involved survivors’ claims against Boeing stemming from a fatal plane crash. Boeing responded to the complaints with motions seeking two rulings. First, Boeing asked the district court to rule that the Death on the High Seas Act preempted other potential grounds for recovery. Second, Boeing asked the district court to rule that claims governed by the Act did not come with a right to a jury trial.
The district court agreed with Boeing on both points. The district court accordingly dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims that did not arise under the Act. And the district court granted Boeing’s request for a bench trial.
At the plaintiffs’ urging, the district court also certified its jury-trial decision for an immediate appeal under § 1292(b). The district court declined, however, to certify its preemption decision. The plaintiffs then appealed.
The Scope of the § 1292(b) Appeal
The Seventh Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction to review both the jury-trial and preemption issues. Section 1292(b) authorizes district courts to certify an order for immediate appeal if certain requirements are met. And in its certification, the district court must identify the issue (or issues) that warrant immediate review.
But under Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, the scope of a § 1292(b) appeal is not necessarily limited to the identified question. Appellate jurisdiction instead extends to “any issue fairly included within the certified order.”
The Seventh Circuit thought that the preemption issue “was decided in the same order” as the certified jury-trial issue. The court of appeals could accordingly review both issues.
The court further explained that it “should resolve” the preemption issue “because resolution of that issue will influence significantly [its] decision on the jury trial question.” If the Death on the High Seas Act does not preempt other theories of relief, then the plaintiffs could pursue those other theories. And the plaintiffs would likely have a right to a jury trial on those other theories. So if the plaintiffs could pursue other theories, the jury-trial issue would necessarily be resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.
Orders, or Documents?
The Seventh Circuit’s decision here comes a little close to conflating appealable “orders” and appealable “documents.”
The preemption and jury-trial issues appear to have been addressed at the same time and in the same document. But that does not make them part of the same “order.” As the Ninth Circuit recently explained, “[a]n ‘order’ refers to a ‘written direction or command,’ not to the document in which that ‘direction or command’ is ‘delivered by a court or judge’ to the parties.” So a single document can contain multiple orders, “particularly when a party requests multiple forms of relief at the same time.” Resolution of each request is a separate order—that is, a separate written direction or command. Those orders do not become a single order due to their inclusion in a single document.
The preemption and jury-trial decisions here are related. But they still seem like different orders—addressing different issues and awarding different relief (dismissal of some claims with the preemption order, a bench trial with the jury-trial order). That being said, there is a good argument here for including the preemption issue in the scope of appeal.
In re Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash, 2024 WL 3665332 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024), available at the Seventh 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 Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. 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 Strange v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the D.C. Circuit held that district courts cannot “recertify” an order and thereby restart the ten-day window for seeking permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court in Strange had rejected the plaintiffs’ efforts to serve process on former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai via Twitter. […]
Continue reading....
Updated to correct the publication dates in the article cites. The Akron Law Review just published its symposium on federal appeals. The symposium collects contributions from Cassandra Burke Robertson & Gregory Hilbert, Andrew Pollis, Michael Solimine, Adam Steinman, Joan Steinman, and me. The in-person portion of the symposium was unfortunately canceled due to COVID-19. But […]
Continue reading....
The Federal Judicial Center released a new report on petitions to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The report—Emery G. Lee III, Jason A. Cantone & Kristin A. Garri, Permissive Interlocutory Appeals, 2013–2019—presents data on the incidence and resolution of § 1292(b) petitions terminated between October 1, 2013, and June 30, 2019. Parties filed 636 petitions to […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
I’m thrilled to announce the creation of Final Decisions PLLC, an appellate boutique and consultancy focused on appellate jurisdiction. Through it, I hope to partner with lawyers facing complex appellate-jurisdiction issues. Almost six years ago, I started the Final Decisions blog as a way to keep on top of developments in the world of appellate […]
Continue reading....
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....
Courts sometimes suggest that would-be appellants must establish appellate standing by showing that the appealed decision injured the would-be appellant. When the appealing party cannot show this injury, these courts think that they have lost Article III jurisdiction. But as a recent opinion from the D.C. Circuit’s Judge Pillard explained, that’s not quite right. Judge […]
Continue reading....
In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]
Continue reading....