Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-30121/USCOURTS-ca5-16-30121-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30121

Summary Calendar

PETER HOFFMAN; SUSAN HOFFMAN, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

DAVID BAILEY, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CV-5153

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Peter and Susan Hoffman filed suit against David Bailey, asserting 

claims for defamation under Louisiana law. Bailey filed a motion to dismiss 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court denied the motion 

and Bailey appealed. Hoffman filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30121 Document: 00513661402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2016
No. 16-30121

2

appellate jurisdiction because the district court’s order is not final and 

appealable. Bailey argues that this court has appellate jurisdiction under the 

collateral order doctrine because the district court denied him immunity for 

reporting the fraudulent misconduct for which the Hoffmans have been 

criminally convicted. He claims that this “qualified privilege” or “qualified 

immunity” immunizes him from the defamation action as a matter of law. 

Alternatively, citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), he contends that 

the collateral order doctrine applies on the ground that Hoffman’s defamation 

claims impugn the validity of Hoffman’s felony convictions for fraudulent tax 

credit applications as to which Bailey had given notice to Louisiana 

governmental authorities. 

Bailey cites no authority holding that the denial of a motion to dismiss a 

complaint for defamation is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. 

This Court does not have appellate jurisdiction and the appeal is therefore 

DISMISSED. 

Hoffman’s motion for damages under Rule 38 is DENIED.

 Case: 16-30121 Document: 00513661402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2016