Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London
772 F.3d 384
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- SWEPCO purchased an insurance policy from Underwriters for a Louisiana power plant project.
- Underwriters moved to compel arbitration under the Convention; district court granted the motion, stayed the case, and closed it for administrative purposes in Sep 2013.
- SWEPCO appealed the Sep 2013 order and later sought separate final judgment under Rule 58(d).
- In Jan 2014 the district court treated the Sep 2013 order as final under the FAA or as eligible for immediate appeal under §1292(b).
- Neither party sought §1292(b) certification; the court analyzes whether the Sep 2013 order was a final, appealable decision.
- The Fifth Circuit holds the Sep 2013 order was interlocutory, not a final disposition, and thus not appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Sep 2013 order final and appealable? | SWEPCO relies on Freudensprung and district intent to deem final. | Underwriters argue the order stayed/administratively closed, an interlocutory posture. | No finality; order is interlocutory and not appealable. |
| Does the FAA/Convention allow immediate appeal from a staying/administratively closed order? | FAA/Convention permits appeal if the order is final under Green Tree. | Stays/administrative closings lack finality; no §1291 review. | Not permitted to appeal; lacking finality under Green Tree framework. |
| Did the district court’s intent or labeling convert the order into a final, appealable decision? | District intended finality and explicit labeling should trigger review. | Labeling alone cannot override the substantive stay/closure nature. | Intent/labeling insufficient; order remained non-final. |
| Does the absence of §1292(b) certification bar appellate review? | No, because finality existed per Green Tree criteria regardless of §1292(b). | Certification is required for interlocutory appeals under §1292(b). | Certification not obtained; review not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (defines final decision with respect to arbitration under §16(a)(3))
- Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending Inc., 389 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 2004) (administrative closure is interlocutory; stay not final)
- Apache Bohai Corp., LDC v. Texaco China, B.V., 330 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2003) (arbitration review generally follows FAA/Convention guidelines)
- Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Orr, 294 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 2002) (distinguishes dismissal vs. stay/administrative closure for finality)
- Freudensprung v. Offshore Technical Services, Inc., 379 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2004) (addressed Rule 58 separate document timing and timeliness)