885 F.3d 1308
11th Cir.2018Background
- A Navy-owned jet crashed during a training exercise, killing First Lieutenant Shawn Nice and others; Charles McDaniel (a Vertex pilot) was piloting when a rudder malfunction and subsequent control inputs caused the tail to fail.
- Kimberly Nice filed a wrongful-death suit against L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace and McDaniel’s estate alleging McDaniel’s negligent response caused the crash.
- Defendants asserted comparative fault by the Navy (aircraft choice, mission speed/altitude, training manual instructions) and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the political question doctrine.
- The district court denied the motion, finding the negligence claim turned on McDaniel’s reaction, not Navy policy decisions.
- Defendants sought interlocutory appellate review as of right under the collateral order doctrine and alternatively sought permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); a motions panel initially granted § 1292(b) permission.
- The Eleventh Circuit considered whether denial of the motion was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine or reviewable under § 1292(b), and ultimately dismissed the appeals and vacated the § 1292(b) permission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of dismissal on political question grounds is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine | Nice: order is not collateral; merits remain for later appeal | Defendants: immediate appeal required to prevent a jury from second-guessing Navy decisions and to protect separation-of-powers interests | Denial is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine — defendants can raise jurisdictional challenge after final judgment; individualized factual inquiry precludes collateral-order treatment |
| Whether interlocutory appeal should be allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) | Nice: § 1292(b) not appropriate because issue is mixed fact and law | Defendants: issue is a pure question of law whether comparative-fault defense invokes political question doctrine | Denied: issue is mixed law-and-fact (who caused crash is disputed), so it fails the § 1292(b) requirement that the question be a pure question of law; court would also decline discretionary review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (sets narrow collateral-order doctrine and forbids individualized jurisdictional inquiries)
- Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (courts should be skeptical of claims seeking pretrial dismissal as a right not to stand trial)
- In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines collateral order criteria in Eleventh Circuit)
- W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co. v. Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co., L.P., 566 F.3d 979 (11th Cir. 2009) (final judgment rule and what constitutes a final appealable decision)
- Mamani v. Berzain, 825 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2016) (identifies § 1292(b) requirements, including that the issue be a pure question of law)
- McFarlin v. Conseco Servs., LLC, 381 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2004) (discretionary nature of § 1292(b) review)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (subject-matter-jurisdiction defects may be raised at any time)
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (denial of dismissal on political-question grounds is not immediately appealable)
- Abelesz v. OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012) (same conclusion regarding political-question dismissal denials)