As the facts still in dispute bear on the objective reasonableness of the force used by the police officers to arrest the plaintiff, the appellate court has no jurisdiction over an interlocutory claim arising from a denial of qualified immunity,
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Interlocutory Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interlocutory Review. Show all posts
Seventh Circuit: Jerry Smith, Jr. v. Melvin Finkley
Given issues of material fact about whether plaintiff was surrendering to police or lunging for gun and whether plaintiff was an immediate threat to safety of officers or others, court has no jursdiction to decide either aspect of the issue of qualified immunity on interlocutory appeal. The fact that the plaintiff wasn't combative or armed complicates the application of relevant precedent that asks if the right was clearly established
An appeal of the sufficiency of the evidence for the denial of quualified immunity can't be decided on interlocutory review.
DISSENT (CJ)
Some of the benefit of qualified immunity is lost if the case is allowed to go to trial; the question is conceptually separate from the underlying claim. The evidence establishes the historical facts of this situation, and the appellate courts can resolve the issues of law arising from those facts.
Sixth Circuit: James Williams v. Brian Maurer
Since the defts didn't move for summary judgment on the False Arrest claim along with the plaintiff in the S1983 claim, summary judgment for the plaintiff isn't reviewable at the interlocutory stage, since it doesn't relate to the assertion of qualified immunity. Pendent jurisdiction would be inapporpriate, as the False Arrest claim isn't logically subsumed in the related claim being decided in the present appeal.
Claim arising from nighttime warrantless entry under exigent circumstances presents a genuine issue for the finder of fact, since the tip leading to the entry was anonymous, not specific as to location, and was only superficially corroborated. Warrantless entry without reaonable belief of exigent circumstances violates clearly established law.
A claim arising from excessive force asks whether the level of force used was gratuitous, not at the level of injury that the plaintiff sustained. The right to be free of excessive force used in an unconstitutional warrantless forced entry is clearly established.
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0184p-06.pdf
Third Circuit: Paul O'Hanlon v. Uber Technologies Inc
In an interlocutory appeal over an arbitration provision, the court to which the appeal is taken must only assure itself of the appellant's right to appeal and the fact that the court from which the appeal comes would have subject matter jurisdiction over a suit arising from the conflict between the parties.
As answering the question of whether a non-customer plaintiff is equitably estopped from avoiding a mandatory arbitration clause within a terms of service necessary for the use of the service is neither necessary for nor inextricably interwined with the question of whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue, the latter can't be answered under pendent jurisdiction on an interlocutory appeal as to whether the non-signatory is equitably bound to the agreement.
Since the plaintiff's are complaining of discrimination that keeps them from using the service, they are not equitably bound to agreement that they have neither embraced nor benefitted from.
Federal Circuit: Depuy Synthes Products v. Veterinary Orthopedic
Sufficient jurisdiction under collateral order doctrine to review an unsealing of confidential supplier lists, as post-judgment review would be after the disclosure, and the question is important and distinct from the merits analysis, not merely a routine discovery matter.
No clear error in the unsealing of the claimed trade secret supplier lists, since, following the relevant state law on trade secrets, the party and the supplier do not have a relationship of confidence, and, additionally, the name of the supplier isn't actually a secret.
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Emakoji
Court's order requiring an in-person appearance at arraignment is not subject to interlocutory review under the criminal collateral order rule.
Court's requirement that the deft secure housing within the district of the court was a reasonable amendment to the release conditions, given the deft's reluctance to travel during a time of pandemic disease. Due Process did not require a hearing, or a finding of a violation of the prior conditions.
Concur/dissent: a requirement to secure new housing four days before an arraignment with presumptive incarceration isn't ripe for review, as a subsequent release condition wouldn't be a modification but a new finding.
Dicta: Court did not sufficiently take into account administrative determination that in-person hearings presented a danger.
Eleventh Circuit: SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC v. Tanja D. Battle, et al.
Ruling on state-action immunity is sufficiently similar to one on qualified immunity to be the subject of interlocutory appeal as a collateral order. (This is a "binding alternative holding.")
Pro forma acceptance of Dental Board's rulemaking by the state's executive is insufficient active supervision by the government to shield the Board from antitrust claims under the state action doctrine; similarly, such acceptance of the rulemaking does not make the change an act of the sovereign, which would be shielded from suit ipso facto.
Concur / Joined in full:
Denial of state action immunity is a question of the interpretation of the Sherman Act, not one of constitutional right, and can be addressed after final judgment, especially in cases involving private parties. Circuit split flagged.
Dissent:
As the lower court reserved judgment on the state action immunity claim for summary judgment, when the record would be more fully developed, the denial is insufficiently final, and the order risks contradiction by subsequent development of the record prior to summary judgment.
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Alexander Oriho
Court order to repatriate funds is sufficiently final for interlocutory review.
Order to a pretrial detainee to repatriate funds in the amount of the alleged fraud violates 5A privilege against self-incrimination, as the location of many of the funds haven't been established or suggested by the government, and the limited use immunity offered by the prosecuting jurisdiction would not protect against use of information as a link in the chain or against uses by other jurisdictions.
Fourth Circuit: Nathaniel Hicks v. Gerald Ferreyra
Claim that S1983 action against Park Service police for unlawfully detaining a Secret Service agent constitutes an impermissible extension of Bivvens is waived for not being raised below; District Court was not obliged to independently assure itself of the remedy's availability, and the scope of the Bivvens remedy is not a jurisdictional question.
Appeal citing deposition testimony contrary to the reading of the facts in the decision below is not a matter for interlocutory review.
Second Circuit: Atlantica Holdings, Inc. v. Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC
FISA, Securities
FISA provides a cause of action under commercial exception for extraterritorial misrepresentations where the losses were directly and (usually to some degree foreseeably) sustained within the USA.
Direct effects on nonparties would qualify.
Locus delicti is where the harm is sustained.
Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal on personal jurisdiction.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2041fd8d-3326-4eba-b744-bb57b252fa78/1/doc/14-917_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2041fd8d-3326-4eba-b744-bb57b252fa78/1/hilite/
FISA provides a cause of action under commercial exception for extraterritorial misrepresentations where the losses were directly and (usually to some degree foreseeably) sustained within the USA.
Direct effects on nonparties would qualify.
Locus delicti is where the harm is sustained.
Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal on personal jurisdiction.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2041fd8d-3326-4eba-b744-bb57b252fa78/1/doc/14-917_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2041fd8d-3326-4eba-b744-bb57b252fa78/1/hilite/
Ninth Circuit: Sung Jang v. Loretta E. Lynch
Securities - Interlocutory appeals
Government can appeal interlocutory evidentiary rulings, however tentative.
Evidence of prior bad acts in for common scheme and lack of coincidence - also held on de novo review to be more probative than prejudicial.
Court does not have pendent jurisdiction over appeal of motion to dismiss when adjudicating an interlocutory evidentiary appeal.
Court does not have jurisdiction over double jeopardy claim based in multiplicious indictment by means of the collateral order doctrine, as the issue can be raised on appeal.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/22/15-50033.pdf
Government can appeal interlocutory evidentiary rulings, however tentative.
Evidence of prior bad acts in for common scheme and lack of coincidence - also held on de novo review to be more probative than prejudicial.
Court does not have pendent jurisdiction over appeal of motion to dismiss when adjudicating an interlocutory evidentiary appeal.
Court does not have jurisdiction over double jeopardy claim based in multiplicious indictment by means of the collateral order doctrine, as the issue can be raised on appeal.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/22/15-50033.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)