Chad Barnes v. Kris Henry
21-16120
| 9th Cir. | Feb 18, 2022Background
- Barnes was injured in a vessel explosion and sued his employer Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC (SHR) and its owner Kris Henry in admiralty.
- The district court found Henry fraudulently transferred a commercial-use permit from SHR to a new entity Henry owned, Aloha Ocean Excursions, LLC (AOE), to evade collection.
- The court entered three sanctions: (1) 2019 order awarding $25,000 and directing the permit returned to SHR; (2) October 2020 order awarding $40,000 (appraised value) after Henry failed to transfer the permit; (3) later order awarding $1,000 plus fees and costs for failure to timely pay under the payment plan.
- Barnes appealed after the third sanctions order and invoked interlocutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).
- The panel assessed whether Barnes timely appealed the earlier sanctions and whether the third sanctions order was an appealable interlocutory order addressing substantive rights.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review Barnes’s challenges and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of second sanctions re: commercial-use permit (sale/transfer) | District court erred in selling permit and finding Barnes agreed permit stay with AOE | Appeal not timely as to the second sanctions; no interlocutory jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—Barnes did not timely appeal the second sanctions |
| Appealability of third sanctions (payment-default award $1,000 + fees) | §1292(a)(3) supplies interlocutory jurisdiction; order reviewable | Order is procedural/adjective, not substantive; does not decide merits or rights | Lacked interlocutory jurisdiction; third order did not define rights or liabilities |
| Discovery-related sanctions denial | District court erred by denying discovery sanctions requested by Barnes | Sanctions decisions at issue are procedural/tactical and not subject to §1292(a)(3) review | Court lacks jurisdiction to review discovery-sanctions arguments under §1292(a)(3) |
| Constitutional challenges and related issues | Raised constitutional claims and collateral issues in appeal | These claims are unrelated to the appealed district court order and outside scope | Lacked jurisdiction to consider constitutional and collateral challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, 889 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 2018) (timely appeal requirement under §1292(a)(3))
- United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2007) (no jurisdiction when interlocutory order not timely appealed)
- Rogers v. Alaska S.S. Co., 249 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1957) (distinguishing substantive from procedural interlocutory orders)
- All Alaskan Seafoods, Inc. v. M/V Sea Producer, 882 F.2d 425 (9th Cir. 1989) (consider financial realities in deciding whether an order addresses merits)
- Kesselring v. F/T Arctic Hero, 30 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 1994) (consider practical matters in interlocutory jurisdiction analysis)
- Sw. Marine Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (narrow construction of §1292(a)(3))
- Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (1995) (scope of interlocutory jurisdiction limited to the precise decision appealed)