Friday, October 20, 2006

Fourth Circuit Analyzes the Use of Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction; Declines to Exercise

Per Rux v. Republic of Sudan, 461 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. Sept. 1, 2006):

In this action for damages brought against it by relatives of American sailors killed in the terrorist bombing of the U.S.S. Cole ("Plaintiffs"), the Republic of Sudan ("Sudan") appeals an order of the district court. . . Sudan argues . . . that this court should exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over, and reverse, the district court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Sudan also argues that this court should exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over and consider for the first time its motion to dismiss for lack of standing . . . . [W]e find . . . that there is no basis to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the remaining issues, we . . . dismiss the remainder of Sudan's appeal.

Sudan . . . argues that we should review this issue under pendent appellate jurisdiction, a judicially-created, discretionary exception to the final judgment requirement. Under this exception, we retain the discretion to review issues that are not otherwise subject to immediate appeal when such issues are so interconnected with immediately appealable issues that they warrant concurrent review. See Taylor, 81 F.3d at 437. Pendent appellate jurisdiction is an exception of limited and narrow application driven by considerations of need, rather than of efficiency. See Montano v. City of Chicago, 375 F.3d 593, 599 (7th Cir.2004); Taylor, 81 F.3d at 437. In Swint, the Supreme Court suggested that pendent appellate jurisdiction is available only (1) when an issue is "inextricably intertwined" with a question that is the proper subject of an immediate appeal; or (2) when review of a jurisdictionally insufficient issue is "necessary to ensure meaningful review" of an immediately appealable issue. Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35 50-51, (1949).

We are constrained by the language of the Supreme Court as well as our own precedent from recognizing efficiency considerations as a basis for the exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction. Sudan next argues that we should exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over its claim that Plaintiffs lack standing based on the Death on the High Seas Act ("DOHSA"), 46 U.S.C. app. ยงยง 761-767 (West 1975 & Supp.2006). The standing issue and the FSIA issue are not sufficiently interconnected to justify pendent appellate jurisdiction. Under the elements of Swint, jurisdiction is appropriate where issues are (1) "so intertwined that we must decide the pendent issue in order to review the claims properly raised on interlocutory appeal or [ (2) ] resolution of the issue properly raised on interlocutory appeal necessarily resolves the pendent issue." Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1285 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted); see also Berrey v. Asarco, Inc., 439 F.3d 636, 647 (10th Cir.2006). Neither situation exists here. Resolution of Sudan's FSIA argument neither required us first to decide nor necessarily decides the issue of standing under DOHSA. In fact, our analysis of the FSIA issue did not address, or even refer to, the issue of standing. Each issue involves a distinct legal concept that does not affect analysis of the other. Accordingly, we find no basis to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the issue of standing.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home