Th i s a ppe a l h a d b e e n c a pt i on e d “ Hol o ca us tVi ct i ms o f Ban k  The f tv. E rst e Gro up Bank .” W e ha v e reform ed the ca p tion to refle ctthe fir stn am ed plaint iff

. Federal Rule ofCivilProcedure 10 ( a) r equi re s pl ea dings t o n am e par t i es , no tt o pr es um e the m eri ts o f t h e plai nti ff s’ cl aim s, no m att er how com pell ing they m ay be. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2940 E R NO K AL MAN A BELESZ etal. ,  P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v. E RS TE G R OUP B ANKAG, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:10- cv-01884

— SamuelD er-Yegh iayan, Judge .
N o. 11

- 2946 I N RE : E RS TE G R OUP B ANKAG, P etitio ner.2 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946

See A be l e s z v. OTP Bank, ___F .3d
__ _(7t h C ir . 20 1 2 ); A bel es z v. 1 M agy a rNe mze t iBan k, ___F .3d
__ _(7t h C ir . 20 1 2 ).

Pe tition fo r W rito f M andamus tothe N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:10- cv-01884

— SamuelD er-Yegh iayan, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 11, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 22, 2012

B efore K ANN E , W I L L I A MS, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. A gr oup ofH ol oca ust su rv ivo rs an d h eir s o f ot h er H olo c au st vic tim s filed su it a g ain st se ve ra l ba n ks alleg in g t h e b an ks p ar tic ip at ed in e x p r o p r i a t i n gp r o p e r t y fr o m Hu n g a r i a n J e ws d ur i ng the Hol oca ust. Thi s ca se, and a par al l elcas e a gainst th e H ung ar ia n n at i o na l r ai l way, ha ve pr o duce d ni ne se p ar at e p en d in g a p p ea ls a n d m an d am u s p et iti on s. In thi s o pinio n , w e a dd re ss the pl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s a gainst de fe nd a nt Er s t e Gr o up Ba nk AG ( “ Er s t e ” ) , whi c h i s a pr i va te l y o wned Aust r i an b ank

. In s epa r at e o pi ni o ns r e l e a s e d t o d a y, we a d d r e s s p l a i n t i ff s ’ c l ai m s a g a i n s tt wo o th erpr i va te b an k s, the Hunga r i anna ti o na l b an k, a nd the Hu ngar i an nati onalr ai l w ay. 1 I nvokin g su bj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on under the Fo re i gn S o ve r ei g n I m m uni ti es A ct( “F S I A”) , 28 U
. S
. C. § 1 33 0( a) , the A l ien T or t S tatute, 28 U
. S. C. § 1 350, and federa l questi on j uri sdic ti on, 28 U
. S. C. § 1 331, pl ai nti ffs a l l ege si x causesN os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 3 ofact i on: ge noci de, ai ding an d abett i ng g enoci de, bai l m ent, co nver si on, co nstr ucti ve tr ust, and acco unti ng. Pl ainti ff s see k t o have thei r case cer ti fi ed as a cl ass ac tio n an d as k t h at ea c h d efe n d a n t b a n k b e h eld j oin tly a n d se ve ra lly re sp on sib le for d am ag es of ap p ro x im at ely $75 bi l l i on. The defendant banks m ove d to dis m i ss on m any g ro und s, i ncl ud i ng lac k o fsubj ect- m att erj uri sdic

tion an d l ack of perso na l j u r isdiction. Th e d istri ct cou rt d en ied all m otions to d ism iss, m otions to recon s id er, and m oti ons f orcer ti fi cati on o fi nter l ocuto ryappeals u n d er 28 U .S .C
. § 1 29 2(b ). Holocaust Victim s of Ba nk Theft v. M agyarNe m ze t iBank, 807F. Su p p . 2d 68 9 ( N .D . Ill. 2011 ) ( denyi ng m oti ons to dism i ss) ; 80 7 F. Su p p . 2 d 699 ( N
. D. I l l

. 2 01 1) ( den y i ngmot i o ns forr ec o ns i der at i o n, clarification, an d certification of interlocu tory ap p eal). Those deni al s pos e s om e chal l engi ng probl em s o f appe l l at e j ur i sdi ct i o n, a s we e xpl ain in Ab e l e s z v . OTP Bank, ___ F.3d at ___

. Th e a p p ell ate j urisd iction story i n thi s ca se b eg in s with defe nd ant M agy arN em zet i Bank ( “M N B”), the H ungari an nati onalbank, wh i ch mo v e d t o d i s mi s s b a s e d o n a d e fe n s e o fs o v e r e i g n i mm unity under the F SI A , 28 U
. S. C. § 16 04. The di str i ct cour t deni ed M N B ’ s m oti on. M N B has appeal ed that d e n i a l, a n d a s we e x p l a i n i n A be lesz v. M agy ar Nem zeti Bank, i t i s wel l es tabl i shed that a deni alo fso ver eign i m m unity under the F SI A is a co l l ate ra l o rdersubj ect to i nter l ocuto ryappeal . ___ F. 3d at ___. Fr om that on e s ound basi s forappel l ate j uri sdic ti on, M N B has ask ed us to exer ci se pend ent a pp el l ate j uri sdic ti on o ver th e o th er arg u m e n t s itm ad e fo r d ism iss al. A n d in tu r n, a ppel l an t Er st e, l i k e th e o th erpr i va te bank s, OTP4 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946

Wh i l e w e e x p r e s s n o o p i n i o n o n th e me r i t s o fp l a i n t i ff s ’ c l a i ms 2 und er the Alie n Tort St atute , w e note f or com plet enes s that the S upre m e Cour ti s c ur re nt l y c ons i der i ng two as pec t s ofthe s c o p e o ft h e ATS th a tma y b e r e l e v a n tt o p l a i n t i ff s ’ c l a i ms he re : ( 1) whethe r c or p or at i ons ar e s ubj ec tt o t or tl i abi l i t y f or violat ions o f t h e l aw ofnati ons, and (2) w hetherand u nd er w hat c ir cum st ances the AT S al lows U.S. courts to rec ognize a c aus e ofac t i on f or vi ol at i ons ofthe l aw ofna t i ons occu rring w ithin the t erri tory ofa s overeign otherthan the United Stat es . See K i obe l v. R oyalDu t ch P etro leu m C o. , 621 F. 3d 111 (2 d C ir . 20 1 0 ), cert
. gran te d , 80 U.S
. L.W
. 3237 (U. S. O ct
. 17, 2 0 1 1 ) (N o . 10 -1 4 9 1 ) , ca l e nda r e d f o rr e a rgume nt, 80 U.S
. L.W
. 3506 (M a r. 5 , 20 1 2 ). and M K B, see ks here to s tr et c h the narr ow d oct rine o f pend ent a pp el l ate j uri sdic ti on t o i ncl ud e i ts own ap p eal and the s epara te i ssues i t s eek s t o ra i se. Erst e, l i ke M K B and O TP, al so fi l ed a peti ti on f orwri t o fm andam us, w hi ch i t a sks thatwe consi der in t h e eve nt that appell ate j uri sdic ti on i s l acking. Erste ’ s a pp ealm ust be di sm i sse d fo r l ac k ofappel l ate j uri sd ictio n w i thout re achi ng the m er i ts ofthe i ssues i t r ai ses . Erst e’ s peti ti on f orwri t o fm an d am us i s a l so

2 d en ied becau se, w hile w e recogn ize th e ex traord inary na t ur e o fthi s l i t i g a t i o n, Er s t e h a s n o tde mon s t ra t e d a cl e a r a nd i nd i s pu t ab l e r i g htt o r e l i e fo n pa r wi th M K B’s and OT P’s per sonalj uri sdic ti on defense.

I. Appe l l at eJur i s di ct i on Erste se eks r evi ew o fthe dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f its m o t io n t o dism iss. A s a gene ral rule, th e d istri ct cou rtN os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 5

m us t issue a fi na l ord er befor e a n ap p ell ate cou rt has j uri sdic ti on to enter tain an ap peal

. See 28 U. S. C. § 1 291. E rs te ad va n c es tw o a r g u m en ts for h ea rin g its ap p ea l. Fi rs t, i t a rgues that the di stric t court ’ s deni alo fi ts m o ti o n t o di smi ss b as ed o n the pol i ti ca l que st i o n do ct r i ne can be ap p ea led now un der the co l l ate ra l o rderdoctr i ne. Se cond, Erst e a rgues, l i ke al l thr ee ofi ts co- defe nd ants, that w e ca n exer ci se pend ent a pp el l ate j uris dict i on o ver oth er i ssu es bec a u se its app eal i s “inex tricably i nt ertw i ne d” wi t h t he a pp e a l s o f i ts co- defe nd ants. N ei therar gum ent pr ovi des us with j uri sd ictio n ove r E rs te ’s a p p ea l.

A
. Coll at e r al O r de rD oc t r i ne Erste , l i ke M K B, urge s that the di str i c t c ou rt ’ s r ej ecti on of i ts pol i ti cal questi on defe nse, i n thi s case bas ed o n th e Uni te d S ta te s’ s i nv o l vem enti n the c r ea ti o n o fthe A u st ria n G en er al Se tt lem e n t F u n d (“G SF ”), is a co llat er al or d er th at ca n be ap p ea led im m ed iat ely . Th is ar gum ent i s ba sed o n the U
. S. go ver nm ent’ s e ff or ts to “pr ovi de so m e m ea su r e o fj us ti ce t o the v i ct i m s o fthe H olo c au st, an d to d o s o i n t h eir rem ain in g lifet im es .” Stipu lated J. A
. 49 (Statem en t of I nt erest fil ed b y U .S. g o v e r n me n t )
. T h e Un i t ed S ta t e s h a s b e e n p a r t y t o t wo in te rn at ion al s et tle m en ts th at h av e p ro vid ed ap p ro x im ate l y $ 8 bi l l i on f orthe benefi t o fvi cti m s o fthe H ol ocaust. One ofth es e sett l em ents, the GSF, was est abl i shed by the Au str i an federa l go ver nm ent a nd A ustr i an co m pani es to m ak e p aym ents f orH ol oca ust- er a cl ai m s a gainst A ustr i a a nd A ustr i an co m panie s, excl ud i ng cl ai m s for6 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946

r es ti tu tion o fwor k s o fa r t. To f ac i l i ta te the c r ea ti o n a nd fu n d in g of th e G SF , th e U n ite d St at es p led ge d t o h elp ach i e v e “ l e g a l p e a c e ” f o r Aus t r i a n c o mpa ni e s wi th re spect to N azi

- er a cl ai m s in U
. S. courts
. The U ni ted S tat es gov er nm ent, bas ed on i ts parti ci pati on in the G SF, fi l ed i n the dist ri ct c ourta St ate m ent o fInter estpursuant to 28 U
. S. C. § 5 17 urging di sm i ssa l o fthe cl aim s a gainst Erste “o n any val i d l ega l gr ound(s) .” Id. at 48. The go ver nm ent’ s S tat em ent o fInter estdi d not a rgue f or dism i ssa l o n any speci fi c ba si s. I n i t s o pi ni o n de ny i ngEr s t e ’ s mo t i o ns f o rr e c o ns i der at i o n an d c er ti fi ca ti o n o fa n int er l o cut o r y a ppea lpur su ant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 1 292(b) , th e di str i ct c ourtst ate d that “ba sed on th e facts of th is c a s e a t this j un ctu re, there re m ai n questi ons as to w hether the Gover nm ent’ s Stat em ent o fInter est i s a pp l i cabl e a nd as to wh ether Plainti ff s ar e el i g ibl e f o r the funds r efer en ce d i n the St ate m ent o fInter est
. ” 8 07 F. S up p. 2d at 706. Erst e argues that the di str i ct c ourtm i si nter prete d the S tat em en t ofInter est, cr eat i ng a new pre condi ti on t o dism i ssa l w h en the fi l i ng o fthe St ate m ent o fInter est sh ou ld ha ve b ee n s uffi ci en t o n i ts o wn to war r an t di s mi s s a l o n po l i t i c a l que s t i o n g r o un ds

. R e s o l ut i o n of thi s pol i ti calquesti on i ssue i s s epara te fro m the m er i ts and no te ffe c t i v e l y r e v i e wa b l e o n a pp e a l fr o m fi na l j ud gm en t, s ays E rste, since furt he r l iti gation w ou ld u nd erm i ne the “ l eg alpe ac e” o ff ered to Aust r i anc o r po r at i o ns l i ke Erste i n exchange f orthei r parti ci pati on in the GSF. A n i m m edi ate ly appeal abl e co l l ate ra l o rderi s o ne that ( 1) c o nc l us i ve l y de te rm i ne s th e di spu te d que st i o n; ( 2) r eso l ves i m port ant i ssues se parat e fro m t h e m er i ts;N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 7

a n d ( 3 ) i s e ffe c t i v e l y unr e v i e wab l e o n a p p e a l fr o m a fin a l j u d gm en t. M o ha w kInd ustries, Inc. v. C a rpen ter, 13 0 S. Ct. 59 9, 60 5 ( 20 09 ). A s we note i n ouranal ysi s o f M KB’s pa r al l ela r g um en t i n Abe l e s z v . O TP Bank, ___ F
. 3d at ___, the col l ate ra l o rderdoctr i ne i s a nar ro w excep tio n to “t h e ge n er al ru le th at a p ar ty is en tit led to a sin gle appeal, to be defe rr ed u nti l fi nal j ud gm ent has bee n enter ed .

. . . ” D igit al Equip . Co rp. v. D es ktop D irec t, Inc. , 511 U. S
. 8 6 3 , 8 6 8 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d) ; se e al so Wil l v. Hallock, 54 6 U.S. 34 5, 35 0 ( 2006 ) ( “w e hav e no t m en ti o ne d a ppl y i ng the c o l l at er alo r derdo ct r i ne r ec en tly wi th o ute m pha si zingi ts mode sts co pe”)
. The cour t m ust co nsi der the e n tire c ate gory o fsi m i l arcas es to deter m in e whether applying the co l l ate ra l o rderdoctr i ne und er § 1291 i s appropri ate
. S ee M o ha w kInd ustries , 130 S. Ct. at60 5. I n ap p lyi ng the s e t e ach ings, the D

. C
. Circu it determ i ned that the denialo fa m oti on t o dism i ss on pol i ti cal q u es tio n gr o u n d s w as n otan im m ed iat ely ap p ea lab le col l ate ra l o rder, not w i thsta nd i ng the f act that t h e fi rs t tw o re quir em ents f or invoki ng the co l l ate ra lo rder d oc tr in e w er e s at isfie d

. D oe v. Exxon M ob il C o rp. , 47 3 F. 3d 345, 34 9 ( D.C. Ci r. 2 00 7). The D. C. Cir cui t t oo k t o hear t th e Suprem e Cour t’ s a dm oni ti on that “ w e hav e m eant w ha t w e have s ai d; al though the Courthas been as ke d m an y t im es to ex p an d th e ‘s m a l l c las s’ o f co llat er al l y a p p ea lab le or d er s, w e h av e in st ea d ke p t it narr ow and se l ecti ve i n i ts m em ber shi p. ” Wil l , 546 U
. S. at 350; se e a l so D oe, 4 73 F .3d at34 9. The l i ne be tw een th os e o rd er s t h at are an d are n ota p p e a l a b le a s c oll ate ra l o rder s probabl y o w es m or e t o hi sto rythan to8 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946

Our det er m i nat i on thatwe l ac k a ppel l at e j urisdi c t i on i s no t 3 b ased on the fact tha t E rste m ay h av e an oth er ch an ce to pre s en ti t s pol i t i c al ques t i on ar gum en tin a s um m ar y j udgm en t m ot i ono r a tt r i a l , a s ur ge d b y pl a i nt if f s. Tha ta r gu m e ntby pl ai nt i ff s m i s under s t ands the c ol l ateral or der doc t ri ne . For exam ple, a defe nd ant w hose m oti on to dism is s a cl a im u n der 42 U.S. C. § 1983 on ground s ofquali fie d im m unity i s denied often can appeal und er the col lat eral o rd er doctri ne even thoughthe s am e i s s ue c oul d be ra i s ed agai n l at eri n the d istrict cou rt. W e ho ld on ly that a d en ial of a m o t i o n to d ism iss on p olitical q u estion gro u nd s is n o t a m o n g the “ sm all cl ass ” oforders thatar e collat eral ly appealable. See Will, 5 4 6 U. S
. a t 3 5 0

- 5 5 ( ho l di ng tha t r e fus a l t o a ppl y Fe deral Tort Claim s A ct ’s j ud gm ent bar w as not appealable as col lat eral o rd er ). p r e c i s e l o g i c a l c o n s i s t e n c y, b u tthe l i n e h a s b e e n d r a wn i n prece dents that w e m ust re spect and fol l ow a s b est w e ca n. Erst e has n ot dir ecte d us to , and w e hav e no t fou n d , an y c as e in w h ich a fed er al a p p ea ls c ou rth eld that denia l o fa m oti on t o dism i ss on pol i ti cal questi on gr ounds w as i m m edi ate l y a p peal abl e a s a co l l ate ra l or der. Per m i tting an appeal fro m t h e d en i alo fa m oti on to d ism iss ba se d on p olit ica l qu es tio n gro u n d s w ou ld substa nti al l y e xpand the sco pe o f t h e co l l ate ra l o rder doctr i ne. W e fol l ow the D. C. Cir cui t o n thi s quest i on and hol d that th e co l l ate ra l o rderdoctr i ne does not pr o vi de appella te j ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r the de ni alo fthe m oti on t o dism i ss base d on Erst e’ s pol i ti calquesti on d efe n se . D oe, 47 3 F
. 3d at 353. 3N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 9 B. Pe nde ntAppe l l at eJur i s di ct i on A s n o t e d, de fe nd a ntMN B, the Hun g a r i a n na t i o na l ban k, ha s ap p ealed the d istric t cou rt’s den ialof its sovere i g n i mmun i t y d e fe n s e u n d e r th e F S I A. In i t s o wn ap pea l, M N B r ai se s o th er i ss ue s th at i t ar g ue s are pend ent t o the F SI A i m m unity i ssue. W e cl ear l y hav e j uri sdic ti on o verM N B’s appeal o fthe denia l o f sov er ei gn im m unity a nd address the m er i ts ofthat d efe n se in a s ep ar at e o p in ion . From th is on e s olid f o o th o l d o n a ppel l at e j ur i sdi ct ion, Er st e, l i k e M KB and OTP, ar g ue s th at th i s co ur t sh o ul d ex er ci se p enden t appell ate j uri sdic ti on ove r i ts own appeal because it is “i nex tri cabl y inter tw i ned” w i th the appeal s o fi ts codefe nd ants. A s w e no te i n Abe l e s z v. O TP Bank, ___F
. 3 d a t___, pend ent a pp el l ate j uri sdic ti on i s a l so a nar ro w doctr i ne, one tha t al l o ws a n a ppel l at e co ur t “t o r ev i ew a n o therwi se una ppea l ab l e i nt er l o cut o r y o r deri fi t i s ‘ i ne xt r ica b ly in te rt w in ed w ith an ap p ea lab le on e.’ ” Re s e ar ch A utom ation, Inc. v. Schrader-Br idg epo rtInt’l, Inc. , 62 6 F
. 3d 973, 97 7 (7 th Ci r. 20 10) , quoting M ont ano v. Ci ty of Chic ago , 37 5 F.3d 5 93, 59 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. Thi s r oo m f or the “ i nex tr icablyi nter tw i ned” use o fpendent appell ate j u ris d ict ion sh ou ld n otbe s t r e t c h ed to ap p ea l no rm ally unapp eal abl e inter l ocuto ryo rder s th at happen to b e r e l a t e d

— e v e n c l ose l y r el a t e d

— to th e a p p ea lab le or d er . P eop le of Sta te of Ill. ex rel. Ha rtiga n v . P eters , 86 1 F.2 d 16 4, 16 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) ; se e a l so U. S
. f o r Us eof Vald e rs St one & M a r b l e, Inc . v. C- Way Cons t
. Co. , 90 9 F
. 2d 259, 26 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90) ( “A cl ose r el ati onshi p between10 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 th e u n ap p ea lab le or d er a n d th e a p p ea lab le or d er w ill not su ffi ce: i t m ust be pra ctica llyind ispen sab le th a twe add re ss the m er i ts o f the unapp eal abl e o rderin ordert o r e s ol vetheprope r l y- t ake n a ppe al .”) (em p h as i s a d d ed ). Th is i s so b ec au se r es o l vinga ppea l s fr o m no n- fi na l de ci si o ns i s g en er al l y i nc o m pat ibl e wi ththe fi na l j udg m en t ru le em b od ied in 28 U .S.C . § 1 2 9 1. M cCar t e rv. Re t i r e m e nt Plan f orD i s t
. M anag e rs of

Am e r i ca n F am i l y Ins . Grp. , 54 0 F.3d 649 , 653 (7th C ir. 2008). Gi v e n the n a r r o w s c o pe ofthe do c t r i ne , p e nd e nta pp e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n i s n o ta v a i l ab l e t o E r s t e h e r e . As we dec i de i n Abe l e s z v. M agyarNe m ze t iBank, we have appell ate j uri sdic ti on o verM N B’s appeal o fthe dist ri ct cour t’ s d en ial ofso ver ei gn i m m unity, but w e decl i ne to exer ci se pend ent a pp el l ate j uri sdic ti on o verthe othe r i ssues that M N B i tse l f see ks to ra i se. ___ F. 3d at ___. Erst e, l i ke M K B and O TP, en te rs the picture by ar gui ng tha t i ts a ppea l i s i ne xt r i cabl y i nt er twi ne d wi ththo se of the othe r defe nd ants, es peci al l y M N B. I n supp or t, Erst e note s that ( 1) the com pla i nt does notd iffer enti ate a mon g the de fe nd a nt s , ( 2 ) de fe nd a nt s ’ mot i o ns to di smi ss i nc o r po r at ed o ne a no th er ’ s g r ou nds a nd a r g um ents, ( 3) the dist ri ct c ou rtaddress ed and rej ecte d defendant s’ mot i o ns t o di smi ss i n o ne o pi ni o n, a nd ( 4) de fen dan ts ’ b r i ef s t o t hi s co ur t o nc e ag ain incor pora te one anothe r’ s g ro und s a nd ar gum ents. Erst e co n c l u d e s b y a r g u i n g th a t r e s o l u t i o n o f a l l o ft he pend i ng appeal s s i m ult aneously w i l l pro m ote j ud i ci al eco nom y. Er st e’ s r el i an ce o n j ud ici ale co no m y t o j us ti fy pe nde nt p a r t y a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n i s mi s p l a c e d

. T h e S u p r e meN os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 11

E rste p oin ts ou t tha t w e exer cised p en d en t p arty a p p e llate 4 j uris dicti on ov er the m alprac tic e cl aim ofone l it igant that wa s “ e n t wi n e d” wi th a n i n de mni t y c l a i m o fa n o th e r l i t i gan t prop erl y before the court because doing s o se rv ed t he broad er pu rposes ofeffic ie ncy and cons is tentres oluti on of the cas e. G reen w el l v. A zt arIndi ana G ami ng C orp. , 268 F. 3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 20 01 ). W e ha v e since n ote d tha t S w int rej ect ed “judici al econom y” as an app ropriat e basi s f or an appellat e c ourt to ex er ci se p en d en t ju ri sd ic tio n . M cC arte r, 540 F. 3d at 653. Court has rej ec te d th is ju st ifica tio n an d es se n tia lly b a r r e d a nyp e nd e ntp a r t y a pp e l l a t e j ur i s di c t i o n. S ee Sw int v. C ham be rs Cou nty Co m m ’n , 514 U
. S. 35 , 51 ( 1995 ) ( “[ T]her e i s no ‘ pend ent par ty’ app ellat e j uri sdic ti on o f th e k i nd the El ev en thCi r cui t pur po r te d t o e xe r ci se . ”) ; M cC a rter, 5 40 F.3d at 65 3 (“ Sw int itselfheld that a court ofappeals had err ed i n i nvoking pendent appel l ate j ur i sdi ct i o n, b ecaus e ‘ j udi ci ale co no m y ’ i s no war r an t for d isregard ing the statu tory fina l- d ecision rule.”)

. 4 Even i fwe w er e deal ing with re l ate d i ssues r ai sed by one ap p ell an t, th e va r ied i ssu es raised do n ot con cern “the sam e s i ngl e i ssue. ” S ee Re s e ar ch Aut om at i on , 62 6 F
. 3d at9 77( “Bo ththe de ni alo fthe i nj un cti o n a nd the d ist r ict co u rt ’s t ra n sfe r or d er co n c er n th e s am e s in gle i ssue: wh etherthi s ca se shoul d be l i ti gat ed in Il l i noi s o r i n Vi r g i ni a. ”)
. Nora re the y “ th e he ad an d t ai l o fthe sam e co i n. ” Har t igan , 86 1 F
. 2d at 166. W hi l e the i ssues that Erste se eks to appealar e cl ose l y r el ate d to th e is sues its co -d ef e n d an ts se ek to ap p ea l, th at rela tio n sh ip does not hel p because we do not have j uri sdic ti on o ver th ose issues , either. T he piv otal point is that Erst e’s12 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 issues are not so “inex tricab ly i nt ertw ined ” w ith M N B ’s so ver ei gn i m m unity defense, wh i ch w e hav e j uri sdic

ti on t o consi der, as to m ake it “pract i cal l y ind i spensabl e” that w e a dd re ss thei r m er i ts at the s am e t i m e. S ee Swi nt, 514 U .S. at 5 1; Va lders Stone & M arbl e, 909 F
. 2d at 262. Exerci si ng pendent appel l ate j uri sdic ti on o ver Erste ’ s a pp ealwould not be c onsi ste nt with the s tatutes and case l aw es tabl i shi ng the fi nal

-j ud gm ent rule

.
II. M anda m us Jur i s di ct i on W i thout appell ate j uri sdic ti on o verthe i ssues thatErst e see ks to r aise i n N o. 11

- 2940 , thatappealm ust be di sm isse d. A ftero bj ecti ons w er e r ai sed to appel l ate j uri sdi ct i o n, E rste a l so fi l ed a pet i ti o n f o r a wri t o fmandamus t o c o mp e l th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o d i s mi s s t h e c l a i ms ag ain st it. A s a ge n er al ru le, ap p ella te c ou rt s are n o t in th e bu sine ss o fr ev i ewi ngr o ut i ne de ni al s o fmot i o ns to dism i ss

— no t byus i ngpe nde nta ppel l at e j ur i sdi ct i o n, n otby u sin g t h e co llat er al or d er d oc tr in e, an d ce rt ain ly not by i ssui ng a w ri t o fm andam us. The fi nal j ud gm en t r ul e ex ists to he l p a vo i d pi ec emea l l i ti g at i o n a nd encr oac hm ent o n the specia l r ol e di str i ct j ud ges pl ay i n m anaging o ngoing l i ti gat i on. S ee M o ha w kInd ustries , 130 S. C t. at 605. F u r t h erm ore, un tila case is over, l i tiga nts do not know w hetheran ind i vi du aler ro r ac tu a lly m at te rs , an d ap p ella te co u rt s u su ally be n efit fr o m h a v i n ga n e n t i r e r e c o r d i n fr o n to fth e m. N ev er th ele ss , th is c ou rtis au th or ize d to i s s u e a w rit o f man da mus pu r s ua nt t o the Al l W r i t s Act, 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 65 1(a ). M an d am u s is a “d ra s t i c rem ed y t ra d itio n allyN os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 13 used to co nfine a l ower co urt to the l aw ful exer ci se of i ts j urisd ict ion or to com pel i t t o exer ci se i ts author i ty w h en it h as a d u ty to d o s o.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. La pi, 45 8 F. 3d 555, 560- 61 ( 7th Cir
. 2006 ) ; see al so All i e d Che m i ca l C orp. v. D aifl on, Inc. , 4 4 9 U. S
. 3 3 , 3 5 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ( “ On l y e xc e pti onalci rcum stances, am ounti ng to a j ud i ci alusurpati on ofpow er, wil l j usti fy t he i nvocat i on o fthi s e xtra
or dinar y r em edy.”)

. Three co nd i ti ons m ust be sa ti sfi ed for th e w ritto iss u e. Firs t, th e p ar ty se ek in g t h e w rit m ust dem onst ra te that the c h al l enged o rderi s no t e ffecti ve l y r ev i ewable at the e nd o fthe c as e, tha t i s, wi th o ut th e wri t i t wi l l s ufferi r r epa r ab l e ha r m . S econ d the partyse eking the writ m ust dem onst ra te a cl earr i ght t o the wri t. Thi rd, t h e i ssui ng co urt m ust be sa ti sfi ed that issuing the wri t i s o ther w i se appropri ate
. S ee Che ney v . U
. S. D is t. Co urtforD is t. of Colum bia , 54 2 U .S. 3 67, 38 0- 81 (2004); In reSa ndah l , 98 0 F
. 2d 1118 , 11 19 (7th Cir

. 19 92) ( “ [ T ] h e p e t i t i o n e r mu s ts h o w ir repar a blehar m ( or, wh at am ounts to the s am e th i ng, the l ack ofan a dequ ate re m edy by w ay o f d ire c t app ealo r othe rwis e) and a clea r ri ght t o the r el i efso ught. ”)
. A l though these d em anding hurdle s “ ar e no t insuperabl e, ” s ee Che ney 54 2 U .S. at 3 81 (gr a n tin g w rit ), w e c on c lu d e t h at th is exacting st andard i s no t s ati sfi ed her e with respectto the di str i ct court ’ s deni alo fErst e’ s m oti on t o dism i ss on pol i ti calquesti on g ro und s. As we a c k n o wl e dge i n Abe l e s z v. O TP Bank, the n atu re ofthi s l i ti gat i on is e xtra or dinar y, gi ven i ts ast ro nom i cal fi na nc i als ta k es a nd a ppr ec i ab l e f ore i g n po l i cydi m en s i o n s . ___F
. 3 d a t___ . We a l s o a r e a wa r e o fth e i mpo r t a nc e o fthe c a s e , a tma nyl e v e l s , t o the p l a i nt i ff s.14 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 I n gr anti ng wri ts to M K B and O T P , how eve r, we note that i t i s the co nfl uence o fthes e s peci fic fac tor s, to gether w i th the cr yst alcl ar i ty ofthe perso nal j uri sdic ti on i ssue , that m ake s g ra nti ng wri ts ofm andam us approp r i a t e . In E r s t e ’ s ca s e , w e c a n a s s u me th a tth e s a me fin an c ial st ak es m ay p re se n t t h e s am e p re ss u re to se tt le i fa cl ass i s cert i fi ed, m eani ng the di str i ct c ourt ’ s o rder m i g htno t be e ffec ti ve l y r ev i ewabl e atthe e nd o fthe ca se . S uch pr es su r e i s o fte n pr es en t i n cl as s ac tions an d o th erb i gc as es , ho w ev er, a nd b y i ts el fdo es no t war r an t i ssuance ofa w ri t o fm andam us. The pro blem f orErst e i s that i t has notsho w n a s i m i l ar l y c l earand i nd i spu tabl e r i ght t o the i ssuance ofthe w ri t. E r s t e ’ s pe t i t i o n f o r a w r i to fma n d a mu s s e e ms to b e ba se d o n the s ame po l i ti ca l que sti o n do ct r i ne a r g um ent i t ask ed us to re vi ew und er the col l ate ra l ord er doctr i ne, but i t i s a l i ttl e f oggy on exactl y w hy Erste h as a “clear an d ind ispu table right” to th e w r it . E rste’s peti ti on m ake s tw o re l ate d argum ents. T h e fi rs t i s that th e d i st r i ctc o ur t ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n b y de te r m i ni ng th at th e U .S . gov er n m en t’s Sta te m en t o f Int er es t w ou ld ap p ly to E rste an d c a llf or dism issal only ifthe p lai nt iffs i n thi s a cti on a re eli gibl e forco m pensati on under the Au str i an se ttl em ent fu nd , the GSF. S eco nd , Erst e conte nd s that the di str i ct c ourtusurped the p ro vin ce o f the e x ec u tive br anch ofthe U
. S. go ver nm ent b y decl i ni ng to deferto the St ate m ent of Inter estand re

fusi ng to di sm i ss the c l ai m s a gainst Ers te. I n i t s o pi ni o n de ny i ngEr s t e ’ s mo t i o ns f o rr e c o ns i deration a nd certification of an i nt erlocuto ry ap p eal pu r-N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 15

Ers t e al s o a rg ues thatthe Se c ond Ci rcu itf ound thatthe 5 dist ri ctcou rt had “u surped p ow er” by requir ing “the G erm an legi s l atur e t o m ake a fi ndi ng of l eg al pea c e and t o do so b efore its sum m er rece ss. ” 25 0 F .3d at 16 4. Th e Seco nd C irc u it di d fi nd thatthe di s t ri c tc our tha d “us ur ped power, ” but f rom the G erm an le gis lature, not from the ex ecuti ve branch of the U .S. go v ern m en t. suant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 1 292(b) , t h e d i str i ct c ourtst ate d tha t“ b a s e d o n the f a c t s o fthi s c a s e a tthi s j uncture, th ere rem ain qu e s t ion s as to w he th er the G overn m en t’s St ate m ent o fInter esti s a pp l i cabl e a nd a s to w hether Pl a i n t i ff s a r e e l i g ib l e f o r th e fu n d s r e fe r e n c e d i n t he St ate m ent o fInter est
. ” 8 07 F. Su pp . 2d at70 6. In so rul i ng, Erst e a rgues, the dist ri c t c ou rtm i si nter prete d the S tat em ent o fInter est a n d cre ate d a new condit i on f ordi sm i ssa l wh en the fi l i ng o fthe St ate m en t ofInter est sh o ul d ha ve b ee n s uffic i en t o n i ts o wn to war r an t dism i ssa l under the p oli ti calquesti on doct rine. Erst e ass er ts i t was pre ci sel y s uch an at tem pt b y a di str i ct cour t to “r en ego ti ate ” the te rm s o fthe si m i l arGerm an F o u n d a t i o n a g r e e me n t t o a ff o r d Ho l o c a u s t v i c t i ms pr o te ct i o ns no t pr o vi ded th er eu nde r tha t l ed th e S ec o nd Ci r cuit to iss ue a wri t o fmandamus i n In re A ust r i an a nd Ge r m an Hol oc aus tLi t igat i on , 25 0 F
. 3d 156 ( 2d C ir. 2001). 5 Inth at c as e, all b u t o n e o f th e n am ed p lain tiffs in a p ut ative class action m oved in t h e d istri ct cou rt f oran or d er pursuant to Feder alRule o fCi vi l Pro ced u r e 4 1 ( a ) a l l o win gth e m t o d i s mi s s th e i r c l a i ms ag ains t th e Ger m anb ankde fen dan ts v o l unt ar i l y a nd16 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946

w i th prej ud i ce, but w i thou t prej ud i ce t o the r i ghts of an y a b se n t m em b er s o f th e p u ta tiv e c las s t o a ss er t t h eir ow n cla im s in an y for u m . 250 F.3d at15 9. A s in th is case , the U
. S. go ver nm ent fi l ed a S tat em ent o fInter est urgin g d ism issal. De sp ite the m otions for vol un tary di smi ss alb y pl aint i ff s, a nd wi th o uto bj ec ti o n b y the defe nd ants, the dist ri ct c ou rt r efused to di sm i ss the m oving pl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s. S ee id

. at15 9- 60. A fter receiving a m otion for recon side ration, the d istri ct cou rt dism i sse d the ca se w ith t w o sti pu l ati ons that w er e a t the he ar t o fpl ai nti ff s’ p et ition f ora w ri t o fm andam us. The S ec o nd Ci r cui t n o te d tha t i t i s “b ey o nd the author i ty ofthe cour ts to i nter fer e wit h the Ex ecuti ve Branch’ s for ei gn pol i cy j ud gm ents. ” Id. at 164. Erst e ar gu es th at t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s “ sim ilar at te m p t” to co n d iti on Ers te’ s di sm i ssa l o n w hetherthe pla i n tiffs can be c om pensated bythe A ustr i an GSF i s “ si m i l ar l y w ell b ey on d th e b ou n d s o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt ’s a u th or ity .” T he Secon d Circu it m en tioned the ex ecu tive bran ch ’s f or eig n pol i cy i nter est s, but did so i n a di scussi on o f the s epara ti on o fpow ers. 250 F. 3d 163- 64. I t ba sed i ts d ecision to i ssu e a w rit of m a n d a m u s n ot on th e U
. S. executi ve bra nch’s f or ei gn pol i cy i nter est s, but ra ther on t w o w ays i n w hi ch the dist ri c t c ou rt o rderi nter fer ed wi ththe a ut o no m y o fthe Ge r m anl eg i sl atur e. Fi r st, the dist ri ct c ourtse em ed to be re quir i ng the Germ an l egi sl atu r e t o ma k e a fi nd i ngo f“ l e g a l p e a c e ” a nd t o do soN os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 17

U nd er the t erm s ofthe agreem ent cre ati ng th e G erm an 6 F ou nd atio n, no fu nd s cou ld b e d istrib u ted to claim an ts un til the att ainm ent of“l egal peace , ” i .e . , the fi naldi s m i s s al of pend ing H olocaus t- r e l a t e d l i t i ga t i on a ga i ns t G erm an com panies in the U.S. courts and a com m it m ent by the Un it ed St at es t o fi l e i n a ny pe ndi ng o r fut ur e H ol oc aus tl i t i gat i on aga i ns t Ger m any c om pani es i n a U. S. c our t a “S t at em en t of Inte rest” in form ing tha t cou rt tha t the foreig n p olicy intere sts ofthe U ni t e d S t a t e s c a l l f orthe Ge r m a n Fo un da t i ont o be re c ogni ze d as the excl us i ve f or um f or the r es ol ut i on of such c lai m s. See 250 F. 3d at 159. bef or e i ts sum m err eces s. Id

. a t 16 4. As the S ec o nd 6 Ci r cui t r ightl y no te d, “ I t woul d b e be y o nd the a uthor i ty ofthe co u rt s o to tr am m elo n the prer oga ti ves ofa l egi sl atur e in the U ni ted S tat es. M u c h le ss does th e c o u r t h a v e th e p o we r t o r e q u i r e s u c h a c t i o n s o ft he l egi sl atur e o fa f or ei gn so ver ei gn .” 250 F. 3d at 164. Secon d , the d istri ct cou rt had stated that the p lai nt iffs coul d fi l e a R u l e 6 0( b) m oti on t o vacat e the di sm i ssa l or der i fthe cri teria o f the Germ an Fo und ati on were not re vi sed as co nt em pla ted i n a decl ar ati on m ade byan att or ney i nvol ved in both the li ti gat i on and the nego ti ati on ofthe U
. S.

- Germ an ag re em ent. The S eco nd C ircuitnot ed that eve n i fthe decl ar ati on g ave such an a ssurance ( w hi ch the cour t found itdi d not) , suc h a provi si on too k the co urt w el l bey ond the b ounds ofi ts author i ty b e c a us e t he c r i t e r i a o ft he Ge r man Fo und ati on w ere govern ed un d er G erm an l aw . Th e d istri ct cou rt’s l anguage appeare d to i nd i cate thati fthe Germ an l egi sl atu re failed to ch an ge G er m an law , th e d ist ric t cou rtco u ld18 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946

or w ou ld va c at e t h e d is m i s sa ls. A s t h e Se c on d C irc u it aga i n note d, “I t i s no t the o ffi ce o fthe cour t, however, to d ecid e w ha t legislation sh ou ld be en ac te d; a nd th e r e fu s a l o fa l e g i s l a t u r e , wi th i n th e s c o p e o fi t s o wn au th o r i ty, t o e na cto r c ha ng e a l aw i s no t a valid g r o und f orv ac aturo fa fi nal j ud gm ent. ” Id. at16 5. The di str i ct cour t’ s s eem i ng i nstr ucti ons to the Ger m an l egi sl atu r e wer e th e j udi ci alus urpa ti o n o fpo werj us ti fy i ng the e xtra or dinar y r em edy o fm anda m u s, not i ts pu rpor ted “r enego ti ati on” ofthe Germ an Found ati on agr eem ent, as Erst e ur ges . Er st e al so a r g ue s th atthe U. S
. g o ve r nm en t’ s S ta te m en t ofInter esti tse l funcondit i onal ly re quir es i m m edi ate d i sm i ssa l

. Erst e s up port s thi s a rgum ent b y c i ti ng In re As s i curazion iGe n e r al i, S
. p. A. , 592 F.3d 113 , 119-20 (2d Cir. 20 10 ); Whi t e man v. Dorothe u m G m bH & Co KG , 43 1 F
. 3d 57, 59 (2 d C ir. 20 05 ); In reNa z i E ra C as e s Agai ns tGe r m an D e f e ndan t s Li t igat i on , 129 F. Sup p . 2d 370, 383, 386 (D .N .J. 2 0 0 1 ) ; a nd Hwang Ge um Joo v . Japan , 413 F. 3d 4 5 , 5 2 ( D. C. Cir
. 20 05)
. W e di sag re e. F i r st, Er st e si m pl y mischa r ac te r i ze s th e S ta te m en t ofInter est
. The S ta tem ent o fInter estdoes noturg e di sm i ssa l, fullst op. Rather, i t say s th at the Unite d Sta tes r e c o mm e nd s di s mi s s a l o fthe c l a i ms a g a i ns tEr s t e on a ny v al i d l egal groun ds

. T he S t a t e men to fInt e r e s ta l so sa y s th at“ th e Uni te d S ta tes take s no po si ti o n o n the mer i t s o fthe u nd e r l y i ngl e g a l c l a i ms o r argume nt s a dv a n c e d b ypl a i n t i ff s o r b y de fe n d a n t s . . . . ” S t i p u l a t e d J
. A. 48. Fur ther m or e, “The U ni ted S tat es doe s no ts ugg e s tthat i t s pol icyi nt e r e s t s c onc e r ni ng t heFu nd i n the m s e l ve s provi deN os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 19

an i ndepe nde ntl egal basi s f ordis m i s s al , but w i l l r ei nfo rce the point thatU
. S. pol i cy i nter est s f avo r dism i ssal on a ny va l i d l ega l g ro und

. ” Def

. - A pp el l ant’ s S epara te A dd endu m 31 6 ( em pha sis add ed). The S up ple m ental St ate m ent o fInter est, o fwh i ch Erst e ur ges us t o tak e j u d icia l no t i c e , re ite ra te s t h at p os itio n : “Insu m , whil ethe U ni t e d S t at e s does not take a l egal pos i t i on on any cl ai m s or defen ses before the C o urt, the U n ited Stat es re i ter ate s that it w oul d be in the f or ei gn pol i cy i nter est s o fthe U ni ted S t a t e s f o r c l a i ms a g a i n s [ E r s t e ] t o b e d i s mi s s e d on any val i d l egal groun d

. ” S up p. S t a t e men t o f I nt e r e s t 3 , S e pt. 30 , 20 11 , ECF N o. 3 5- 2 ( emphas i s adde d)

. The S ta te m en t o fInt er es t des er ve s th e r es pec t o fthe di st r i ct co ur t an d th is c ou rt, bu t t h e St at em en t o f Int er es t d oe s n otits elf com pel di sm i ssa l o fthe cl ai m s a gainst Ers te. N either W

hi t e m an nor Hwang Ge um Joo dem onst ra tes that E rs te h as a cl earr i ght t o the i ssuance ofa w ri t o f m an damus in thi s ca se . In Whi t e m an , whenthe gover nm en t fi r stpr es en te d i ts Statem en t o fInt er es t to the dist ri ct c ourt, i t di d not ur ge the di str i ct c ourt t o re st o n the for ei gn pol i cy i nter es t of the Unite d Sta tes as an i nd ependent l ega l bas i s fordi sm i ssa l

. W he n t h e case re ached the Se c on d Ci rcui t, however, the U ni ted S tat es no l o ng e r o ffe r e d tha tqua l i fi c a t i o n a nd i ns t e a d a s s e r ted th at defe re nce t o the v i ew s o fthe executi ve bra nch on the Unite d Sta tes ’ s for ei gn pol i cy i nter est s s up port ed dism i ssa l of t h e case. The S eco nd Ci rcui t found that defe re nce w as ap propri ate “[ i ] n the ci rcum sta nces prese nt ed i n thi s ca se . . . . ” 43 1 F
. 3d at6 9. Tha t i s no t th e si tuati on in the prese nt ca se. Rather, the St ate m ent o f I nter est s p ecifi cal l y s tat ed that i t was nots ug g es ting20 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 that the pol i cy i nter est s in them selv es provi de an i nd ep en d en t le ga l ba sis for d ism iss al. I n Hwang Ge um Joo , wom en fro m China, Taiw an , S outh K or ea, a n d the Phil i pp i nes s ued Ja pan al l eging the y wer e ab duct ed an d f o r ce d i nt o s exua l s l av ery b y the J apa ne se Arm y pr i o r t o a nd dur i ngW o r l d W arI I
. The D.C. Ci rcu it n ote d that in or der t o adj ud i cate pl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s, the cour t would have to r eso l ve pla i nti ff s’ dispute w i th J apan ove r the m eani ng o f t h e t re ati es between J apan and T aiw an , S outh Kore a, and China. 41 3 F
. 3 d a t5 2
. T h e qu e s t i o n w h e th e r th e w a r - r e l a t e d c l a i ms off or ei gn nat i onal s were exti ngui shed w h en the go ver nm ents ofthei r countr i es enter ed in to peace tr eat i es w i th J apan w as one th at c oncerned the Un i ted S tat es only w ith resp ect to h er for eign relations. T he cou rt thus deter m i ne d t hat the ca se w as nonj usti ci abl e under th e p olit ica l qu es tio n d oc tr in e. Id. at 52- 53. F ur th er m o r e, the f ac t th atthe S ec o nd Ci r cui t an d the U
. S. Dis tr i ct Cour t forthe Dist ri c t of New J er seyhave di s mi sse d c a s e s wh e r e the g o v e r nme nts ub mi t t e d a St atem ent o fInter estal so does not dem onst ra te that Erste has a c l e ara n d i n dis pu t ab l er ight to m an d am u s in thi s ca se. S ee C hen ey, 5 42 U. S
. a t 38 1 ( p etitioners ee k i ng wri t o f m an damus m us t sa ti sfy th e bur den of sho wi ng that hi s r i ght t o i ssuance ofthe w ri t i s cl earand i nd i sp ut able). T h e se case s p rovide strong su p p ort forErst e’s p oli ti calquesti on a rgum ent, but othe r ci rcui ts have f ound the pol i ti cal questi on doctr i ne did not apply in si m i l arci rcum sta nces. S ee, e . g. , U ng a ro-B ena ges v . D resdn er Ban k AG , 3 79 F
. 3d 122 7, 1 23 5-41 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 4) ( ho l di ngN os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 21 that pol i ti calquesti on doct rin e d i d not a pp l y, despi te exi ste nc e of Ger m an Fo und ati on Agree m ent, but that abst enti on under inter nati onalco m i ty doctr i ne was ap p rop riate). The di st r i ctc o ur t m ay ve r y wel l b e wro ng on the pol i ti calquesti on i ssue, and that m ay be su ff i c ien t fo r E rs te to ob ta ina re ve rs al on d ire c t a p p ea l. W e ex p re ss no vi ew o n the questi on e xcept to sa y that th e ans w er i s not so clear th at w e s hou ld d ep art fro m o rder l y a pp el l ate prac ti ce, wh i ch req u i re s a fi nal j ud gm ent, and iss ue the extr aor dinar y wri t o fm andamu s . T o i s s u e a wr i t o f ma n d a mu s u n d e r s u c h c i r c u msta nces “w ould u n derm i ne the se ttl ed l i m i tat i ons up on th e po w er of an ap p ell ate cou rt to revie w i nt erlocuto ry or d er s.” Will v. U nited Sta tes , 389 U .S . 90, 98 n
. 6 (1967); In reSa ndah l , 98 0 F
. 2d at 1120 ( “M andam us, i n contr ast [ to a co l l ate ra l-ord erappeal ] , i s a di scr eti onar y wri t; and the s t a nd a r d o f r e v i e w i s na r r o we r tha n i n an ord inary ap p eal. ”). Fi nal l y, Erst e m ake s m uch of th e fa ct that pl ai nti ff s’ com pla i nta l l e g es H ol oca ust- er a wrongdoi ng by H ung ar i an ba nk s whi l e i t i s an Aus t r i an b an k, co ve re d by th e U .S.- A u st ria n A gr ee m en t. E rs te is a d efe n d an t in th is l i ti g at i o n, ho wev er, b ec au se i n 2 003 ita cqui r ed th e H ungar i an bank that, acco rdi ng to the com pla i nt, had ta i nted ass ets
. On thi s point Erst e m ake s tw o ar gum ents. Fi rs t, E r s t e i s th e d e f e nd a nta n d th e r e f o r e , s i n c e E r s t e c l a i ms an enti tl em ent t o l ega l peace under the U

. S. -A ustr i an a g r e e men t s , we s ho ul d n o tr e a c h the i s s ue o fthe subsi di ar y a t a l l

. S eco nd , Erst e a rgues that the U

. S.

- A ustr i an agr eem ents ar e di ffer ent fro m the U
. S.

- Germ an A gr eem ent i n an i m port ant w ay. T h e U .S.-G erm an22 N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 agreem en t d efi ne s w ho is a Ge rm an su b sidiary of a Germ an co m pany i n ter m s o fwh etherthe acqui si ti on h ad be en co m p l e te d as of th e e ffec tiv e d at e o f th e U .S.- G erm a n agree m en t. A us tria, how ever, negotiated differ ent l anguage so that the U
. S.

- A ustr i an ag re em ents define “Au str i an co m panie s” to in c l ud e “ [ e] nter pri ses sit u at ed ou ts id e t h e b or d e r s of th e p re se n t-d ay R ep u b lic of A u st ria in w h ich A u st ria n e n te rp ris es . . . atan y g i v e n t i me, had or ha ve a d irect or ind ir e c t fina nc ialpa rti ci pat i o n o fa t l ea st2 5 per ce nt
. ” S upp. S ta te m en t of I nter est n. 1, Se pt. 30, 2011 , EC F N o. 35- 2, quoti n g U .S.- A ustr i an A gr eem ent (a l ter ati ons and em phasi s by U ni ted S tat es)
. Thi s defi ni ti on, Erst e a rgues, i s no t t i ed to the da te o fthe c r ea ti o n o fthe Ge ne r alS et tl ement F und. Ba se d o n thi s defi ni ti o n, Er st e ar g ue s th atthe l e g a l p e a c e tha ti tc l a i ms i ti s e nt i t l e d t o al so e xt e nd s to i ts H ungari an subsi diar y. I n or alar gum ent we as ked i fErst e’ s pos i ti on is that A ustr i an banks and o ther cor pora ti ons th at p ar ti ci pated in th e A gr ee m en t an d th e Fu n d ar e in es se n c e a b le to “v ac c in at e” en tit ies th at fac e H olo c au st liab ilitie s in othe r countr i es by acqui ring th em . Ers te agr eed with thi s a sse ssm ent, st ating tha t “ the i ssue has be en re sol ved, f orbet tero r w or se , byan e xecuti ve agr eem ent. ” This vaccinati on theo ry i s e xtra or dinar y. Fo l l owed to i ts l ogi calco n c lu sio n, i t would per m i t a co ver ed A ustr ian en tit y t o a p p ro ac h a for eig n en tit y t h at fou n d its elf facing H olocau st-era clai m s in a U
. S. cou rt, acq uire that f or ei gn en tity, and then a sse rtthatthe U
. S.

- A ustr i an ag r ee m en t g ua r an te es tha t f o r ei g n e nt i tyl eg alpe ac e. To be c o n v i n c e d th a t th i s i s i n f a c t wh a t th e U. S
. g o ve r n-N os. 11

- 2940 & 11

- 2946 23

me n tth i n k s th e U. S
. - Aus tr i a n a g r e e me n t s p r o v i d e , we w oul d req u ire a cl ear erand m or e per suasi ve sta tem en t t h an a c on c lu so ry an d am b igu ou s fo ot n ot e in a s uppl e men t a l S t a t e men t o f I nt e r e s t fi l e d i n an unrel ate d case.

Concl us i on Because we l ack appell ate j uri sdic ti on under e i ther the c ol l ate ra l o rderdoctr i ne o r pend ent a pp el l ate j uri sdict i on, Erst e’ s a pp eali n N o. 11

- 294 0 i s D IS MIS S ED . Because Er ste has f ai l ed to dem onstrat e that i t has a c lea r an d ind isp u ta b le rig h t t o t h e is su an c e o f a w rit of m an d am u s, its p et itio n for a w ritof m a n d a m u s in N o. 11

- 2946 i s D ENI ED .

8- 22- 12