A v. Richard Wayne Schair
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4346
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege that Schair and Wet-A-Line Tours trafficked Brazilian women, including minors, for sex acts with clients on river tours, in violation of TVPA §1591.
- Plaintiffs filed a civil action under §1595 seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- DOJ criminal investigations prompted a district court stay under §1595(b)(1) during the pendency of related actions.
- District court stayed the civil action in August 2011; Brazil investigation was not addressed at that time.
- In July 2012 plaintiffs moved to lift the stay; district court later found the domestic criminal action no longer pending and lifted the stay in November 2012.
- Defendants appealed the district court’s order lifting the stay, arguing appellate jurisdiction under collateral order doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the lift-of-stay order appealable under §1291 or collateral order doctrine? | Collateral order review is required for a stay-lift to be appealable. | Collateral order doctrine provides jurisdiction to review the stay-lift order. | No appellate jurisdiction; collateral order doctrine does not apply. |
| Does Cohen’s collateral order test apply to the stay-lift order? | The order conclusively determines an important, separable right and is reviewable. | The order does not raise an important issue separate from the merits. | Cohen prong two not satisfied; review not available. |
| Does §1595(b) require a stay while a foreign prosecution is ongoing, affecting the lifting decision? | TVPA stay provision does not mandate continuing a U.S. civil action where the domestic investigation ends. | Stay persists as long as any related domestic or foreign prosecution or investigation is pending. | Court held the domestic investigation no longer pending; stay lifted consistent with statutory and legislative intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court 1949) (collateral order doctrine origin; narrow exceptions from final judgment rule)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (Supreme Court 2009) (limits and governs collateral-order review; strict Cohen-test requirements)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (Supreme Court 2006) (three-part Cohen test for collateral-order appeals)
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 559 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2009) (explains Cohen test applicability and importance of 'important issue')
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (Supreme Court 1994) (collateral-order context and final-judgment principles)
- Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794 (Supreme Court 1989) (final-judgment rule guidance for §1291)