2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-17-2010 

# C he ry l H arri s v . K el log g B rown & Ro ot P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2325

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C he r y l H a r r i s v . Ke l lo gg B r own & Root " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 666. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/666P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 2325

_____________ C H E R Y L H A R R IS , C o -a d m in istra trix o f th e E sta te o f R y a n D . M a se th , d e c e a se d ; D O U G L A S M A S E T H , C o -A d m in istra to r o f th e E sta te o f R y a n D . M a s e th , d e c e a s e d ,

v. K E L L O G G B R O W N & R O O T S E R V IC E S , IN C ., A ppel l ant
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 2- 08- cv- 00563 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le N o ra B
. F isch er

A r gued J une 22, 2010 B e f o re : S M IT H , F IS H E R , a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t17, 2010)2 Pat r i ck K
. C avana ugh ( ar gued) S tep h e n J. D e l S o le W il li am S
. S ti ck m an , IV Del So l e Ca v a n a u g h Str o y d LLC 200 Fi r s tA venue Sui t e 300, T he W at er fr ontB ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 C ouns el f orAppel l ee R aym ond B
. B i agi ni K ur tJ
. H amroc k M i chel l e L. H y l t on D an iel L
. R u ssell, Jr. M cK enna, L ong & A l dr i dge 1 9 0 0 K S t r e e t , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20006 C ouns el f orAppel l ant John R
. D i ng ess J os eph L. L uci ana, I I I ( ar gued) Di n g e s s , Fo s t e r , Lu c i a n a , Dav i d s o n & Chl e b o s k i LLP 20 St anw i x St r eet PN C C ent er , T hi r d Fl oor Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 C ouns el f orAppel l ant W il li am D
. W icka rd K & L G at es 210 Si xt h A venue Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 C ouns el f orAppel l ant3 OP I NI ON
S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. T h i s c a s e r a i s e s i n t er es t i ng and i m por t antques t i ons about the s co p e o f th e po li ti ca l q u esti o n d o ctri n e a n d the F ed era l T o rt C l ai m s A ct ’ s “combat antact i vi t i es ” exc ept i on. W e do notr eac h th o se q u e s ti o n s n o w , h o w e v e r, b e c a u se th e ya re n o t p ro p e rly befor e us . W e mustd ism is s t hi s pr emat ur e appe al forl ack of ju ri s d ic tio n . I. T hi s appea l ar i s es fr om the ac ci dent al death of St aff Ser geantR y an M as eth, an ac t i ve dut y A r m yR angerand G r een B er ets er vi ng i n I r aq. O n J anuary 2, 2008, Ser geantM as eth w as s h o we r i n g i n h i s q u a r t e r s wh e n t h e e l e c t r i c wa t e rp u mp serv ici n g the b u il d in g sh o rt -circuited. B ec au se th e b u il d ing ’s el ectr i cal s y s t em w as notpr oper l ygr ounded, a cha rge fl ow ed t h rough t he pi pes and w at er , s hocki ng Ser geantM as eth and in d u c in g c a rd ia c a rr e s t. H is p a re n ts, C h e ry l H a rris a n d D o u g las M a se th ( col l ect i vel y , “Pl ai nt i ffs ”) fi l ed a w r ongful death and s ur vi val act i on agai ns t K el l ogg B r ow n & R ootSer vi ces , I nc. ( “K B R SI ”)T h e D is tr i c t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 3 2 (a ). 4 i n Penns y l vani a s t at e court
. K B R SI i s a governm entcontr act or th a t p e rf o rm s v a rio u s se rv ice s fo r th e U n ited S tate s m ili tar yin comba t z o n e s , i n c l u d i n g I r a q . Pu r s u a n t t o a c o n t r a c t wi t h t he A r m y , K B R SI w as r es pons i bl e forel ectr i cal m ai nt enanc e i n t he bui l di ng i n w hi ch Ser geantM as eth w as el ectr ocut ed. Pl ai nt i ffs al l ege thatt he el ectr i cal pr obl ems i n Ser geant M as eth’ s bui l di ng we r e we l l

- k n o wn ; t h a tKBRS I n e g l i g e n t l yf a i l e d t o r e p a i rt h e m; and thatt hi s negl i gence caus ed the dea t h of thei rs on. A ft er pr oper l yr emovi ng t he s ui tt o t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i c tCour t fo r t he W e s t e r n Di s tr i c tof Pe nn s y l va ni a , K BR SI 1 m o v e d to d ism iss u n d e r R u le 1 2 o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re . K B R S I id e n tifie d tw o g ro u n d s fo r dis m iss a l. F irst, i tar gued thatt he ca se pr es ent ed non- j us t i ci abl e pol i t i cal q u e s tio n s . See B aker v. C arr , 3 6 9 U
. S
. 1 8 6 , 2 1 7 (1 9 6 2 ). Second, i tar gued tha t i tw as i m m une fr om s ui tundert he
“ c o mb a t a n ta c t i v i t i e s ” e x c e p t i on t o t h e F e d e r a l To r tCl a i ms A ct’s w aive r o f sov ere ign im m u n ity. S ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 8 0 (j) ( pr es ervi ng i m m uni t yt o “[a]ny cl ai m ar i s i ng outof the com batantact i vit i es of the m i l i t ary or nava l forces, or the C oast G uar d, dur i ng t i m e of w ar ”)
. T he part i es conduct ed s ever al m o n th s o f

d is c o v e ry re la te d to th is m o tio n . O n M ar ch 31, 2009, t he D i s t r i ct C our t deni ed t he mot i on to d ism iss w ith o u t p re

ju d ice
. O n th e p o lit ica l q u e stio n iss u e , it5 c o n c lu d e d : U pon cons i der at i on of the pr es ent rec or d .
. . t he C our tfi nds that Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s do notpr es ent non- j us t i ci abl e pol i t i cal ques t i ons . . . . T he pr i nci pl es of s eparati o n of pow er s w i l l notbe v i o l a t e d b y t h e Cou r t r e s o l v i n g t h e me r i t s of P l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s. A ccor dingl y , [K B R S I’ s] m ot i on t o di s m i s s Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s bas ed on the pol i t i cal ques t i on doctri n e i s deni ed, w i t hout p re ju d ic e . I f fur t herfac tual devel opm ent ill u m in a tes th e p re se n c e o f p o lit ica l q u e stio n s in t hi s act i on, [K B R SI ] m ayr enew i t s m ot i on att hat tim e . T h e C o u rt a lso h e ld th a t K B R S I w a s n o t en tit led to im m u n ity undert he combat antact i vi t i es exce pt i on “at this t i m e” but e m p h a siz e d th a t it s d e c isio n w a s in f o rm e d b y th e f

a c t th a t o n ly
“ lim ite d d is c o v e ry” h a d b e e n c o n d u c te d to d a te
. K B R SI s oughtcert i fi cat i on foran i nt er l ocut or yappea l under28 U
. S. C
. § 1292( b)
. T hat t oo w as deni ed. T he D i s t r i ct C our tconcl uded fi r s tt hati t s M ar ch 31 or derdi d noti nvol ve a
“ c o n tr o llin g ” q u e s tio n o f la w . See 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1 29 2(b). Ital so hel d t hat t her e w as no s ubs t ant i al bas i s fordi ffe r ence of opi ni on, a n d th a t allo w in g a n in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l w o u ld n o t m a ter ially a d v a n c e th e u lt i m a t e t e rm in a tio n o f th e litig a tio n . Id

. T he D i s t r i ctJ udge aga i n not ed thatt he ca s e w as i n t he ear l ys t ages of di s covery , and th at K B R SI ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s w as deni ed6 w i t houtpr ej udi ce. She r ei t er at ed thats he w oul d ent er t ai n a re n e w e d m o tio n , if o n e w a s w a rra n te d in lig h t o f th e f a c ts obt ai ned thr ough fur t her di s covery . I n t he i nt er i m , how ever , s he th o u g h t P lain tiff

s s h o u ld h a v e th e o p p o rtu n ityto c o n d u c t m e rits di s covery
— of w hi ch ther e had been vi r tual l ynone, near l ya y ear and a hal f aft er Ser geant M as eth’ s death— w i t houtt he del ayt hat an appe al w oul d i nevi t abl ycaus e. I ns t e a d o f p r oc e e di ng i n the D i s t r i c tCour t , K BR SI i m m edi at el yfi l ed a N ot i ce of A ppeal
. I tar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u r t e rre d b yre

jec tin g its p o lit ica l q u e stio n a n d § 2 6 8 0 (j) defe ns es . O n M ay7, 2009, w e o rde r ed the part i es t o pr ovi de br i efi ng as t o w hether w e have j ur i s di ct i on. K B R SI i ns i s t s t hat w e d o ; P la in tif

f s d is a g re e . II
. 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291 gi ves us j ur i sd i ct i on overt he “f i nal d e c isio n s” o f th e d istric t c o u rts. “ A ‘f in a l d e c isio n ’ ge n e ra llyis one w hi ch ends t he l i t i gat ion on t he mer i t s and l eave s not hi ng forthe court t o do but exec ut e t he j udgm ent
. ” C at l i n v. U ni t ed St at es , 324 U
. S. 229, 233 ( 1945)
. K B R SI conce des thatt he or derdeny i ng i t s m ot i on t o di s m i s s does notfi tt hi s des cr i pt i on. It a rg u e s, h o w e v e r, th a t th e o rd e r is im m e d iate lyre v iew a b le under the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne s etfor t h i n C ohen v. B enef i ci alI ndus tr i alLoan C or

p. , 3 3 7 U .S . 5 4 1 (1 9 4 9 ). T h is doctr i ne “i s bes t under s t ood notas an exc ept i on t o t he ‘ fi nal decis i on ’ rule l ai d d ow n b y C o n g res s i n § 12 91 , bu tas a7 ‘ pr act ical cons t ruct i on’ of i t , ” D igi t alE qui p. C or p. v. D es kt op Di r ect , 5 11 U
. S. 863, 867 ( 1994) ( quot i ng C ohen , 337 U
. S. at 5 4 6 ), w h ich re c o g n ize s tha t “ [ w ]h ile a fin a l ju d g m e n t alw a y s is a f in a l d e c isio n , the re a re in sta n c e s in w h ich a f in a l d e c isio n is nota fi nal j ud g m ent
. ” A bney v

. U ni t ed Stat es , 431 U
. S. 651, 658 ( 1977) ( q uot i ng S ta c k v . B o y le , 342 U
. S. 1, 12 ( 1951) (J a c k s o n , J ., c o n c u rr in g in p a rt ))
. T o est ablish coll at eral order j uri sdi ct i on , K B R S I m ust s how t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der ( 1) concl us i vel ydet erm i ned ( 2 ) “ an i m por t anti s s ue compl et el ys epar at e fr om t he mer i t s of the act i on” and ( 3) “w oul d be ef fec t i vel yunr evi ew abl e on appea l fr om a fi nal j udgm ent
. ” W i ll v. H al l ock , 546 U
. S. 345, 349 ( 2006)
. W e co ncl ude thatthe or derappea l ed di d not
“ c o n c lu siv e lyd e ter m in e ” w h e th e r K B R S I c o u ld su c c e ss f u lly i nvoke the pol i t i cal ques t i on doctr i ne or t he combat antact i vi t i es exce pt i on. T her efor e, t he C ohen t e s ti s n o ts a t i s f i e d , a n d we n e e d n o t a d d re s s th e o th e r t w o p ro n g s o f th e te s t. J

o n e s v . L ill

y , 37 F. 3d 964, 966 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( not i ng t hatal l t hr ee pr ongs of t he C o h en t es tm us tbe s at i s fi ed bef or e col l at er al or derr evi ew is a p p ro p ri a te ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s u se d v a r yin g lan g u a g e to i m pl ement t he “c oncl us i vel ydet erm i ned” pr ong of C ohen , but w e p erc eive n o ch an g e in th e g o v er n in g stan d ard
. T h e C o u rt has des cr i bed C ohen as r equ i r i ng a “f ul l ycons um m at ed deci s i on” and “ a compl et e, for m al , and .
. . fi nal ” r es ol ut i on of t h e d is p u te d is s u e . A bney , 4 3 1 U. S. a t6 5 9
. I th a s a l l ow ed8 coll at eral order r eview w here t here w as “no b asi s t o sup po se th a t th e D istric t Ju d g e c o n tem p late d a n yre c o n sid e ra tio n o f h is deci s i on, ” Moses H

. C on e Mem ’l H os p . v . Mercury C on str. C or p. , 460 U
. S. 1, 12- 13 ( 1983) , and pr ohi bit ed itw her e the r e l e v a n to r d e rwas l e f t“ s u b j e c tt o r e v i s i on. ” C oo pers & Lybr and v. Li ves ay , 4 3 7 U
. S
. 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 ( 1 9 8 1 )
. M o r e r e c e n t l y, t he C our thas expl aine d t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng m us tbe “the fi nal w or d on t he subj ectaddr es s ed. ” D igi t alE qui p. C or p. , 511 U
. S. at868. “Tent at i ve” rul i ngs can ne vers at i s fyt he
“ c o n c lu s iv e ly d e te rm in e d ” re q u ir e m e n t. See, e. g. , id

. at869 n. 2; C oopers & Lybr and , 4 3 7 U .S . at 4 6 9 n .1 1 ; C ohen , 337 U
. S. at 5 4 6
. C ons i s t entw i t h t hi s author i t y , w e have l ong hel d t hat col l at er al or derr evi ew r equi r es “a f i nal r athert han a pr ovi s i onal di s pos i t i on of an i s s ue. ” R odgers v. U

. S. St eel C or p. , 508 F. 2d 15 2, 15 9 (3d C i r. 19 75 ). A n il l ust rat i ve case is Met ex Corp. v. A CS I ndus tr i es , I

n c. , 748 F. 2d 150 ( 3d C i r . 1984)
. T her e, p lai n ti ff M etex su ed a c o m p eti tor fo r un fa irtr ad e p rac ti ce s. In fur ther ance of thatcl ai m , i ts oughtcert ai n r eco rds from t he D epart m entof J us t i ce unde rt he Fr ee dom of I nfor m at i on A ct (“ F O IA ”). W hen t he D O J res i st ed, M et ex j oined i t as a defe ndanti n i t s unfai rt r ade pr act i ces cl aim , t hen moved for s um m ary j udgm ent on t he FO I A i s s ue. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed t he mot i on. M et ex im m edi at el yappea l ed. W e di s m i s s ed for l ack of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on, beca us e the “di s t r i ctcour tdi d not tr ea t i ts ru li n g o n the su m m aryjud g m en t m o ti o n as f inal; r athe r, it i nd i cat ed that i t w as prepared t o r econ si der t he m oti on a t a9 l at ert i m e. ” Id

. at 153. W e hel d t hat “[b] ecau se th e di s t r i ct co u rt e x p li cit lyleft op en ren ew ed co n side rati o n o f th e F O IA cl ai m , t he or derw as not‘ concl us i vel y d eterm i ned’ w i t hi n t he m eani ng of C ohen
. ” Id

. T h a t d e c isio n e c h o e d o u r h o ld in g in Lusar di v. X

er ox C or p. , 747 F. 2d 174 ( 3d C i r . 1984)
. I n t hat cas e, pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a purpor t ed cl as s acti o n agai ns tX er ox, al l egi ng unl aw ful age di s cr i m i nat i on. A ft er a h ear i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tcondi t i onal l y cert i fi ed the cl as s . I tor der ed X er ox t o pr ovi de pl ai nt i ffs w i t h a l i s tof al l pot ent i al claim an ts, and pl ai nt i ffs t o pr ovi de not i ce of t he l aw s ui tt o every o n e o n t hat lis t. Id

. at175- 76. T he courtpr opos ed us i ng t he cl as s not i ce, and an a ccompany i ng ques t i onnai r e, as a “di s coverydevi ce that ul t i m at el yw o u ld enabl e i tt o det erm i ne w hethera gr oup of ‘s im ila rl ys itu a te d ’ i n d iv id u a ls ” e x is te d
. Id

. at176. I ti nt ended t o dece r t i fyt h e cl as s “i f the evi dence el i ci t ed byt he ques t i onnai r es and cons entfor m s di d notdemo n str at e an adequa t e number of s uffi ci ent l y sim il arcl ai m s . ” Id

. W hen X er ox appea l ed the condi t i o n a l c e rt i f i c a t i on or der , w e di s m i s s ed forl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. W e hel d t hat the fi r s tpr ong of C ohen w as nots at i s fi ed bec aus e the or derw as expl i ci t l ym ade “ s ubj ect to re v isio n b y th e d istric t c o u rt” d e p e n d in g o n th e re sp o n se s to th e q u e s tio n n a ir e . Id

. at 177. W e not ed thats uch “c ondi t i onal cert i fi cat i on [coul d] i n n o w aybe t erm ed a f i nal di s pos i t i on of t he cl as s act i on i s s ue. ” Id

. a t 1 7 7 -7 8
. O th e r ca se s in th is C irc u it h a v e u n f o ld e d s im ila rl y . See, e. g. , N e w Y o rk v . U .S

. Me ta ls R e

f. C o. , 771 F. 2d 796, 799 ( 3d C i r . 1985) (r ej ect i ng j ur i s di ct i on u n d er C ohen beca us e the di s t r i ct cour t “i nt end[e d] t o r econs i der it s o rde r” a s so o n as c ertain f a ct-find ing w as c o m p let ed );10 Si l ber l i ne M

f g. C o. v. I

nt ’ l Ni cke lC o. , 569 F. 2d 1217, 1220 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( percur i am) ( fi ndi ng col l at er al or derdoctr i ne i nappl i cabl e w her e di s t r i ctcour thad noty et“s et t l ed [the d is p u te d i s s u e s ] c o n c lu s iv e ly”)
. C f

. Fed. I ns . C o. v. R ubi n & C o. , 12 F. 3d 1270, 1280 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( fi ndi ng C ohen t est s at i sfi ed w her e the di s t r i ctcour tr ej ect ed a c l ai m of s over ei gn im m u n ity , an d “ g a v e n o in d ica tio n th a t itw o u ld re o p e n [ th a t] is s u e a t a la te r p re -t ri a l s ta g e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s ” ). T hes e ca s es convi nce us t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s M ar ch 3 1 o r d e r d id n o t co n c lu siv e lyd e ter m in e th e d isp u ted iss u e s in t hi s cas e. J udge Fi s cherm ade c l eart hather rejecti o n of K B R SI ’ s pol i t i cal ques t i on and § 2680(j ) defe ns es w as not n e c e s s a ri ly h e r “ f

in a l d is p o s itio n ” o f

th e s e is s u e s . C ohen , 337 U
. S. at546. In fa ct, sh e d id so tw ice— firstin d en y ing K B R S I’s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and aga i n i n deny i ng cert i fi cat ion for i nt er l ocut o ry appea l under§1292( b)
. H errul i ng w as not hi ng r es embl i ng a “c om pl et e, for m al , and .
. . fi nal r ej ect i on” of K B R S I’ s p o s itio n . A bney , 43 1 U
. S
. at65 9. R at her, i tw as a “t ent at i ve” rul i ng bas ed sol el y on t he l i m i t ed di s coveryt hathad b e e n c o n d u c te d to d a te
. D igi t alE qui p. C or p. , 511 U
. S. at869 n. 2. A s i n Met ex , t he “di s t r i ctcour tdid n o t t r eati t s rul i ng as fi nal ; r ather , i ti ndi cat ed thati tw as pr epar ed t o r econs i dert he m ot i on ata l ater ti m e.” 748 F. 2d at15 3. U nd er these ci r cumst ance s , acc ept i ng K B R SI ’ s appea l now w oul d n otbe “re v ie w ”; i tw oul d be i m pr oper“i nt ervent i on, ” i f notout r i ght “i nt rus i on. ” C ohen , 3 3 7 U .S . a t 5 4 6
.11 K B R S I’ s ar gum entforj ur i s di ct i on r el i es chi efl yon Fr eder i co v. H

om e D epot , 507 F. 3d 188 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , and U

. S. Steel C orp. v. U

nited M i ne W

orkers , 4 5 6 F
. 2 d 4 8 3 (3d C ir
. 1972)
. K B R SI ci t es t hes e cas es for t he gener al pr opos i t i on t hat col l at er al or derj ur i s di ct i on m ayexi s t“notw i t hs t andi ng t hatt he o rd e r a p p e a led w a s is su e d ‘w ith o u t p re ju d ice .’” T h a t p rin c ip le is tru e a s f

a r a s it g o e s, b u t itd o e s n o t g o n e a r ly f a r e n o u g h to hel p K B R SI
. B ot h Fr eder i co and U .S . S tee l ar e di s t i ngui s habl e. I n Fr eder i co , the p lain tiff f iled a c las s a c tio n law su it a g a in st H o m e D e p o t in sta te c o u rt. T h e c o m p lain t so u n d e d in fr aud and br eac h of contr act
. H om e D epot r emoved t o fede r al cour t , and the di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed t h e com pl ai ntw i t hout p re ju d ic e p u rs u a n t to R u le s 9 (b ) a n d 1 2 (b )( 6 ). Fr eder i co , 507 F. 3d at190- 91. T he pl ai nt i ff c hos e nott o amend hercompl ai nt t o r emedyt he def

i ci enci es not ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t
. I nste ad, s he appea l ed. W e r ai s ed the i s s ue of j ur i s di ct i on su a sp o n te , and not ed ourp ri o r hol di ng t hat“a di s m i s s al w i t h l eave t o amend w i l l be tr eat ed as a fi nal or deri f the pl ai nt i ff ha s el ect ed t o s t and u p o n th e o ri g in a l c o m p la in t,” ra th e r t h a n a m e n d it. Id

. at192 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed)
. B eca us e t he pl ai nt i ff mai nt ai ned t hathercompl ai ntw as l egal l ys uffici ent , and cl ear l ys i gnal ed heri nt entt o s t and upon i t , w e tr eat ed the d ism iss al w i t hout p re ju d ic e a s a f

in a l d e c is io n . Id

. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we h e l d t h a twe had j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1291, notw iths t andi ng t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s di s m i s s al “w i t houtpr ej udi ce. ” W e not ed t hatal l ow i ng a p p e llate re v iew u n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s w as “con si st ent w i th t he goal of the fi nal j udgm entrul e— t o pr eventpi ece m eal12 l i t i gat i on— beca us e i f pl ai nt i ff cannot or w i l l notbr i ng a s econd act i on, t her e i s no ri s k of m ul t i pl e l i t i gat i on. ” Id

. ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion s o m itted). U.S . S tee l i nvol ved an a t t empt bycert ai n s t eel a nd m i ni ng i nter est s t o en

j oin a w ork st op pag e organ i z e d byl abo r uni on s. 456 F. 2d at485. A pr el i m i naryi nj unct ion issue d, butw as vaca t ed on appea l
. W hen the mat t err etur ned t o t he di s t r i ct cour t , t he part i es ent er ed i nt o a s t i pul at ion w hi ch “e nd[ed] t he l aw s ui t for al l pr act i cal purpos es . ” Id

. at 486. T he uni ons t hen fi l ed a mot i on t o r ecove rl i t i gat i on cos t s i ncurr ed i n t he i nj unct i on pr ocee d ing s . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed thatm ot i on w ith o u t p re

ju d ice , a n d th e u n io n s p ro m p tlya p p e a led . W e h e ld that w e h ad juri s d iction u n d er C ohen , beca us e “the or der app eal ed from , al t ho ug h i n form i nter l ocu t ory , w as i n pr act i cal e ffec t fi n a l on t he i s s ue” of cos t s , as i tw as cl eart hat“no furt her pr ocee di ngs w oul d t ake pl ace i n t he di s t r i ctcour t
. ” Id

. at487 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h e d iffe ren ce s b etw ee n thes e cas es an d the c ase b ef o re us ar e appa r ent
. I n Fr eder i co and U

. S. St eel , w e had j ur i s di ct i on beca us e i tw as cl ear t hat t he di s t r i ct cour thad r ender ed i t s fi nal di s pos i t i on of the di s put ed i s s ues , not w i t hs t andi ng t he “w i t hout pr ej udi ce” des i gnat i on. I n ot her w or ds , i n bot h cas es t he or der appea l ed w as “the fi nal w or d on t he s ubj ectaddr es s ed, ” D igi t al E qui p. C or p. , 511 U
. S. at 868, and t hus t her e w as no dangerof d u p l i c a t i v e a p p e a l s . H e r e , t h e r e a r e n o s u c h i n d i c i a o f f i n a l i t y. T he D i s t r i ctC our texpl i ci t l yi nvi t ed the part i es t o r evi s i tt heInd ee d , K B R S I h as a lr ea d yinf o rm ed the D istri ct C o u rt 2 that itinten d s to f

il e a ren ew ed m o ti o n to d ism is s an d /or a s um m ary j udgm ent m ot i on once m er i t s di s covery i s compl et ed.
T hi s i s not a far

- fl ung hypot het i cal
. I ti s exac t l yw hat 3 happene d i n C ar m i chael v. Kel l ogg B r ow n & RootSer vs . , I nc. , 5 7 2 F
. 3 d 1 2 7 1 (11 th C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). T h ere , p lai n ti ff s b rou g h t a t o rt claim ag ains t K B R S I b ase d o n an ac cide n t i n v o lving a m il it ary convoy i n I r aq. K B R SI m oved t o di s m i s s on pol i t i cal ques t i on gr ounds
. T he d istr i ctcour tdeni ed thatm ot i on and al l ow ed di s coveryt o run i t s cour s e. K B R SI agai n m oved t o di s m i s s on pol i t i cal ques t i on gr ounds
. T hi s t i m e, w i t h t he bene fi tof a compl et e r ecor d, t he di s t r i ctcour tagr eed thatpol i t i cal ques t i ons 13 d is p u te d is s u e s a s th e f

a c tu a l r e c o rd d e v e lo p e d
. N orw oul d as s er t i ng j ur i s di ct i on now comportw i t h t he goal of the f

inal i t yrul e— avoi di ng pi ece m eal l i t i gat i on. Fr eder i co , 507 F. 3d at192. I t t akes l i t t l e i m agi nat i on t o for es ee how r evi ew i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng now coul d under m i ne t hatgoal
. Suppose w e undert ook r evi ew her e and c oncl uded t h a t , o n t h e r e c o r d b e f

o r e u s , n o p o l i t i c a l q u e s t i o n e x i s t e d
. We w o u ld th e n re m a n d th e c a se , an d p re su m a b ly , d isc o v e ryw o u ld cont i nue. B ut beca us e t he pr es ence or abs ence of a p ol i t i cal q u e s tio n is s u c h a f

a c t- in te n s iv e in q u ir y , s ee Baker , 369 U
. S. at 2 1 7 , a bet t er - devel oped r ecor d coul d gi ve r i s e t o another col or abl e m ot i on t o di s m i s s . Suppose t hat t hi s t i m e, t he D i s t r i ct 2 C o u r tg r a n t e d K B R S I ’ s mo t i o n , a n d P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l e d
. We

3w e re p re s e n t a n d d i s m is s e d th e c a s e . Id

. at1279. Pl ai nt i ffs appealed, and af

t era l engthy , fac t
- i nt ens i ve ana l y s i s , t he E lev e n th C i rcui taffirm ed. If K B R S I had be en p erm i t t ed to appea l aft ert he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed i t s i ni t i al m ot i on, t he E l eventh C i r cui tm i ghtw el l have bee n fo r ced t o exami ne the s a m e c a s e tw ic e in s e a rc h o f p o litic a l q u e s tio n s . 14 w oul d again b e requi r ed t o deci de the appl i cabi l i t yof the poli t i cal ques t i on doctr i ne t o t hi s cas e. T her e coul d be no cl ear erexam p le o f t he veryr edundanc y , del ay , and w as t e of ju d icia l r e s o u rc e s th a t th e f in a l d e c isio n ru le is in ten d e d to p re v e n t. See F i reston e T i re & R ub ber C o. v. R isj ord , 44 9 U. S. 3 6 8 , 3 7 4 (1 9 8 1 ). II I. B eca us e t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s M ar ch 31 or derd id n ot c o n c l u s i v e l yd e t e r mi n e t h e d i s p u t e d i s s u e s i n t h i s c a s e , we c a n n o t re v iew it u n d e r th e c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e . W e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l f

o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n .