2006 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
7-6-2006 

# Robinson v . H ar t zell P rop elle r
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3379

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Ro b in s on v

. H ar tz e ll P r ope lle r " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 672. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/672P 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. 04- 3379

M I C H A E L R O B I N S O N , I n d i v i d u a l l y, and as Par entand N atur al G uar di an of J enni ferR obi ns on and M at t hew R obi ns on; W E N D Y R O B I N S O N , I n d i v i d u a l l y, and as Par entand N atur al G uar di an of Sar ah K el l eyand Samant ha K el l ey

v. H A R T Z E L L P R O P E L L E R , IN C .; N E W E N G L A N D P R O P E L L E R S E R V IC E , IN C .; C O L U M B IA A IR C R A F T S E R V IC E , IN C .; T E XT RO N L YC OM I NG R E CI P RO CA T I NG E NGI NE DI VI S I ON, A DI VI S I ON OF AVC O C OR P OR AT I ON; T E XT RO N, I NC

. ; AVC O C OR P OR AT I ON H a rt z e ll P ro p e lle r, I n c ., A ppel l antT h e H o n o ra b le A lan D . L o u rie , U n ited S tate s C irc u it * J udge fort he Feder al C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 01- cv- 05240) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J a n E . D u B o is

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 12, 2006 B efor e: FI SH E R , G R E E N B E R G and LOU RI E, C i r cui tJudges

.

* ( Fi l ed: J ul y6, 2006) Pat r i ck J

. O ’ C onnor A n n T . F ield C ozen & O ’ C onnor 1900 M arketSt r eet , 4th Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ant B ra d ley J. S to ll T h e W o lk L aw F irm 1710- 12 L ocus tSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ees , Mi chael

R obi ns on and W endy Robi ns on3 J

. B ruce M cK i s s ock M cK i s s ock & H offman 1818 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee, N

ew E ngl and P r opel l erSer vi ce, I

nc.

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. I n thi s compl ex pr oduct s l i abi l i t ycas e i nvol vi ng t he tra g ic c ra sh o f

a sm a ll p a ss e n g e r a irc ra f t, w e c o n sid e r p rim a rily th e f o llo w in g iss u e o f law : w h e th e r w e m a ye x e rc ise a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on undert he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne t o r evi ew t he d e n ial o f a m o tio n f

o r su m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n th e b a sis th a t a s t atut e of r epos e w as i nappl i cabl e. W e concl ude t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or derdoes not fa ll u n derthe col l at er al or derdoctr i ne a n d w il l ac c o rd in g lyd ism iss th e a p p e a l f o r la c k o f

a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on. I. O n A ugus t8, 1974, H artzell m an u fa cture d the “ Y ”-sh ank al um i num pr opel l er t hat eventual l y m ade i t s w ayont o a M ooney M 20E ai r craft

. T hatai r cr aftw as s ubs equent l ypur chas ed by W endya n d M i c h a e l Rob i n s o n . Twen t y - f i v e y e a r s l a t e r , on A ugus t15, 1999, t he pr opel l er fr actur ed m i d- fl i ght , caus i ng theT he R obi ns ons al s o s ued N ew E ngl and Pr op ell er 1 S e rv ice , a c o m p a n yth a t in sp e c ted a n d se rv ice d th e p ro p e ller in 1 9 8 9 , fo r n e g lig e n c e . T h a t cla im is n o t at iss u e in th is a p p e a l. Pub. L

. N o. 103- 298, 108 St at
. 1552 ( 1994) , amended by 2 A ct of P u b

. L

. N o . 1 0 5 -10 2 , § 3 (e), 1 1 1 S tat
. 2 2 1 6 (19 9 7 ). S ect i on 2(a) of G A R A provides as fol l ow s: 3 (a ) IN G E N E R A L .--E x c e p t as p ro v id e d in s ubs ect i on ( b) , n o ci vi l act i on fordamages for d e a th o r in

ju ryto p e rs o n s o r d a m a g e to p ro p e rty ar i s i ng outof an a cci dent inv o lvi ng a gene r al avi at i on ai r cr aftm ay be br oughtagai ns tt he m anufa ctur erof the ai rcraftort he manufactur er o f anynew component , s y s t em, s ubas s embl y , or otherpartof the ai rcr aft , i n it s capa c ity a s a m an u fa cture r i f th e a cc iden t occ u rred

-- 4 ai rcraftt o cr as h. B ot h W endyand M i chae l s uffe r ed ext ens i ve i nj ur i es : W endys uffe r ed a b rok en back, br eas tbone, and l eft f o o t , wh i l e M i c ha e l fr a c tu r e d h i s s p i n e , r e n d e r i n g h i m a parapl egic. T he R ob i nson s thereaft er br ou gh t sui tagainst H a r t z e l l u n d e rt h e o r i e s o f n e g l i g e n c e a n d p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y. 1
T he G ener al A vi at i on R evi t al i zat i on A ct ( “G A R A ”) 2 con t ai ns a st atute of r epo se t hat gen eral l y bars su its against ai rpl ane manufac tur er s br oughtm or e than ei ght een y ea rs aft er th e d e liv e ry d a te to a n i n i t i a l p u rc h a s e r o f th e a ir c ra f

t. See 49 U

. S. C

. § 40101 not e. T he R obi ns ons , how ever , al l ege thatt hey 3( 1) aft ert he appl i cabl e l i m i t at i on p eriod b eg inn ing o n -- ( A ) t he dat e of de l ive r yof the ai r cr aftt o i t s fi r s tpurcha s eror l es s ee, i f del i ver ed di r ect l yfr om the m anufa ctur er ; or ( B ) t he dat e of fi r s tdel i veryof the aircr aftt o a per s on engage d i n the bus i nes s of s el l i ng or l eas i ng s uch ai r cr aft ; or ( 2 ) wi t h r e s p e c tt o a ny ne w c o mp o n e n t , s y s t e m, s ubas s embl y , orot herp a rtwhi ch r epl ace d another co m p o n en t, sy stem , su b asse m b ly , o r oth er p art o rig in a llyin , o r w h ich w a s a d d e d to , the a irc ra f t, and w hi ch i s al l eged t o have caus ed su ch death, i nj ur y , or damage, aft er t he appl i cabl e li m i t at i on per i od begi nni ng on t he dat e of compl et i on of the r epl ace m entoraddi t i on. 49 U

. S. C. § 4 0 1 0 1 n o t e § 2 ( a )

. Se c t i o n 2 ( d ) o f t h e Acts t at es t hat“the s ect i on s uper s edes anySt at e l aw t o t he ext entt hats uch l aw perm it s a ci vi l act i on des cr i bed i n s ubs ect i on ( a) t o be b ro u g h t af

ter th e a p p lica b le lim itatio n p e rio d f o r su c h c iv il act i on es t abl i s hed bys ubs ect i on ( a)

. ” I d. not e § 2( d)

. Sect i on 3 o f th e A c t d e f

in e s th e “ lim itatio n p e rio d ” a s “ 1 8 y e a rs w ith res pect t o gen eral aviat i on ai rcr aftand the co m po nen t s, sy st em s, s ubas s embl i es , and otherpar t s of s uch ai r cr aft

. ” I d. n o te § 3 (3). 5 a r e e n t i t l e d t o b r i n g t h e i r s u i tu n d e ra n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e GARA s t a tu t e o f

r e p o s e b e c a u s e Hart z e l l ma d e s e v e r a l ma t e r i alT he s peci fi c exc ept i on ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e i s cont ai ned 4 w ith in se c tio n 2 (b )(1 ) o f th e A c t: ( b) EX C E PT I O N S.

- - Subse ct i on ( a) does not ap p ly

-- (1 ) if th e c laim a n t p lea d s w ith sp e c if icityth e f a c ts nece s s ary t o pr ove, and pr oves , t hatt he m anufa ctur erw i t h r es pectt o a type ce r t i fi cat e or a irw o rth in e ss c e rtific a te f o r, o r o b lig a tio n s w ith r es pectt o cont i nui ng ai r w or t hi nes s of, an ai r cr aft ora component , s y s t em, s ubas s embl y , orot her p a rt o f a n a irc ra f

t k n o w in g lym isre p re se n ted to t he Fed e r a l Avi a t i o n Admi ni s t r at i on, orconce al ed or w i t hhel d f

r o m t h e Fe d e r a l Avi a t i on A d m in istra tio n , req u ire d in f o rm a tio n th a t is m at er i al and r el evantt o the per form ance ort he m ai nt enanc e oroper at i on of suc h ai r cr aft , orthe c o m p o n e n t, sy ste m , s u b a ss e m b ly , o r o th e r p a rt, t hati s ca us al l yr el at ed t o the harm w hi ch the c la im a n t a lle g e d ly su f

f e re d .[ .] 4 9 U

. S

. C

. § 4 0 1 0 1 n o te § 2 (b)(1 ). 6 m i s r epr es ent at i ons in connec t i on w i t h obt ai ni ng a type cert i fi cat e fort he pr opel l erati s s ue fr om t he Feder al A vi at i on A d m inistrati o n (“F A A ”). I d. 4 Feder al l aw r equi r es pr opel l er m anufa ctur er s t o obt ai n a typ e c e rt if

ic a te f ro m th e F A A

. See i d. § 44704. T he purpos e of t hatpr oces s i s t o ens ur e t hat t he pr opel l er has been de s i gned andTh e r e i s s o me c o n f u s i o n i n th e r e c o r d a s t o whet her 5 H ar t zel l had D O A s t atus atthe t i m e the appli cat i on w as s ubm i t t ed i n 1963. H ar t zel l cl ai m s t hat i t r ece i ved D O A s t atus in 1 9 6 7 . (A p p . 1 7 .) T h e d isa g re e m e n t o v e r w h e n H a r tz e ll r ece i ved D O A s t atus does nots eem t o be ma te r i al t o the ul t i m at e di s pos i t i on of the cas e. I ti s r el evant , how ever , t o t he Ro b i n s o n s ’ a r g u me n tth a t Ha r t z e l l c o n t i n u e d t o a b u s e i t s DOA author i t yaft er c er t i fi cat i on w as i s s ued “byconce al i ng the vibr at i on problem and l eading t he F A A t o b el i eve that t he cau se o f th e f re q u e n t p ro p e ller f

a ilu re s w e re o th e r th a n w h a t H a rtz e ll 7 ma n u f a c tu r e d p r o p e r l y , p e r f

o rms p r o p e r l y , a n d me e t s F AA m in im u m s ta n d a rd s . See i d. S o m e m a n u f a c tu re rs a re a b le to gr antt hemsel ves a type ce r t i fi cat e thr ough t he FA A ’ s D el egat ed O pi ni on A ut hor i t y( “D O A ”) pr oces s . D O A s t atu s gr ant s t o a d e sig n a ted e n g in e e rin g re p re se n tativ e (“ D E R ” ) th e a b ili tyto
“ a s s u m e th e F A A ’s ro le a n d c e rt if ya p a rt .” (A p p . 1 6 -1 7 , 3 7 3 .) F o llo w in g c e rtific a tio n , a n e n tity w ith D O A a lso “ is re sp o n sib le t o ens ur e thatt he pr oductdes i gn i s i n acc or dance w i t h t he r egul at i ons and has no char act er i s t i cs w hi ch mayd etra ctfr om fl i ght safet y . ” Servi ce di ffi cul t i es , s uch as a fa i l ur e, m a lf u n c tio n , o r d e f

e c t in a n y p a rt , in c lu d in g “ p ro p e lle r b la d e . . . s tru c tu ra l f

a ilu re ,” a re to b e “ re v ie w e d , re p o rt e d , a n d re s o lv e d .” 1 4 C

. F

. R

. § 2 1

. 3 (c)(5). I n 1963, H artz el l s ubm i t t ed an a ppl i cat i on fort ype cert i fi cat i on t o t he FA A forthe pr opel l erand ai r cr aft c o m b in a tio n a t issu e – th e H C -C 2 Y K -1 /7 6 6 6 -2 H a rtz e ll pr opel l eri ns t al l ed on the Ly comi ng IO

- 360- A I A pow er ed M o o neyM 20E ai rpl ane. I n connec t i on w i t h i t s i ni t i al 5k n e w th e m to b e .” (A p p . 1 8 .) 8 appl i cat i on, H ar t zel l conducte d a vi br at i on t es tof the pr opel l er/ engi ne/ ai r cr aftcombi nat i on t he w eek of J ul y8, 1963. T h at t est m ea su red the s tr esse s (m ea su red in po u n d s p er sq u are i nch ( ps i ) ) pl ace d on t he pr opel l erat di ffe r ents peeds ( m eas ur ed i n r evol ut i ons perm i nut e ( rpm ) ) atfourdi ffe r entfl i ght condi t i ons : ( 1) t ake- off/ cl i m b at ful l t hr ot t l e; ( 2) l evel fl i ghtat f u ll th ro ttl e ; (3 ) l e v e l f

lig h t w ith th ro ttl e se t at 2 4 -in c h m a n if o ld p re s s u re ; a n d (4 ) s t a t i c f l ig h t a t f u ll th ro ttle . (A p p . 2 4 7 -4 8 .) W i t h r egar d t o t hes e t es t s , the r epor ts t at ed the fol l ow i ng: T he pea k s tr ess at2230 R PM r eac hed a va l ue of 4800 ps i forthe 24 i nch H g m ani fol d s ett i ng, w hi ch i s appr oxi m at el ythe al l ow abl e val ue. Si nce thi s engi ne has no damper s w hi ch ca n w ear a n d c a u se h ig h e r stres se s, th e p ro b a b ili ty o f th is v a l u e b e i n g r e a c h e d o re x c e e d e d i n s e r v i c e s e e ms re m o te. T h e r e a p p e a rs to b e n o n e c e ss ityto pl a c a r d a ga i ns top e r a t i on i n the 22 00

- 23 00 RPM r ange.

**** T he H C

- C 2Y K / 7666- 2 pr opel l er i s cons i der ed s at i s fac t or yvi br at i onw i s e w hen i nst al l ed on the IO -360 L y com i ng eng i ne w i t ho ut r estri ct i on s.A l t hough s om ew hatuncl earfr om the br i efs , i t s eems a s 6 i f the gr aphs i n E ngi neer i ng R epor tN o. 2 1 3 w er e notturned o v e rt o t h e F AA. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatthi s s econd s t at ement 7 w a s n o t a m isre p re se n tatio n . T h e C o u rt sta ted , h o w e v e r, th a t it s rul i ng w as w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o the R obi ns ons ’ r i ghtt o offe r addi t i onal evi dence at t r i al t o ar gue t hat H art zel l k n ew t hat vi br at i on damper s l es s ened the s t r es s es i m par t ed t o the p ro p e lle r. ( A p p . 3 6 -3 7 n .8 .) 9 (A p p . 2 4 4 -4 5 .) T h e R o b in s o n s co n tend that this st atem en t i n the re p o rt cont ai ns t hr ee mi s r epr es ent at i ons . Fi r s t , t he R obi ns ons cont end t hatt he pea k st r es s w as notappr oxi m at el yequi val entt o t he al l ow abl e val ue, but r ather exce eded the al l ow abl e val ue. T he R o b in so n s c ite to a se t o f g ra p h s th a t w e re c o n tain e d in E n g in e e rin g R e p o rt N o . 2 1 3 th a t d e m o n s tr a te th a t allo w a b le vibr at ory stres s l i m i t s w ere excee ded at three di fferentpo i nts
. 6 Second, t he R ob inso n s cont end thatthe l ack of vi br at i on damper s on t h e L y com i ng engi ne w oul d i ncr eas e, r atherthan decr eas e, the str ess on t he pr opel l er . T heypoi ntt o a 1972 engi neer i ng r epor ti n w hi ch H art zel l r ecomm ended “the us e of [a] dam p ere d engi ne” t o decr eas e the cha nces of pr opel l er fa il u re. (A p p . 5 5 3 -54

. ) F inally , the R o b inso n s arg u e tha t th ere 7 w as a nec es s i t yt o pl aca r d agai ns toper at i on atcert ai n s peeds b e c a u se v ib ra to r y p e a k stre ss e s e x c e e d e d F A A p e rm iss ib le l i m i t s . W hen the typ e cer t i fi cat i on w as fi r s ti s s ued, t he type cert i fi cat i on dat a s heet i ncl uded a not e r equi r i ng ow ner s of theA n A D is a le g a lly e n f o rc e a b le ru le th a t a p p lie s to , i nt er 8 ali a , a i r c ra f

t a n d p ro p e lle rs . See 1 4 C. F

. R. § 3 9

. 3

. T h e F AA i s s ues an A D i f tw o r equi r ement s ar e s at i s fi ed: ( 1) an uns afe c o n d iti o n e x ists in th e p ro d u c t, an d (2 ) th e c o n d iti o n is lik e lyto e x is t o r d e v e lo p in o th e r p ro d u c ts o f th e s a m e typ e d e s ig n . I d. § 3 9 .5 . A n y o n e w h o o p e ra tes a n a irc ra f t is re q u ire d to c o m p ly w ith a n a p p lic a b le A D

. I d. § 39. 7. 10 M ooneyM 20E t o m ark thei rt achomet er s betw een 2000 a nd 2350 rpm . B eca us e of s om e ea r l ypr opel l ert i p fai lures, the FA A i s s ued A i r w or t hi nes s D i r ect i ve ( “A D ”) 65- 12- 13, w hi ch 8 pl ace d fur t herrpm r es t r i ct i ons on t he pr opel l er/ engi ne combi n ati o n and r equi r ed an a ddendum t o the ai rpl ane f l i ght ma n u a l

. ( Ap p . 5 5 9

. ) I n a d d i t i o n , th e F AA i s s u e d a n o t h e rAD i n 1 97 7, w hich r equ i red add i t i on al rpm res t ri ct i on s. T h e R o b in so n s a lso a ss e rt th a t H a rtz e ll co n tin u e d to m ake know i ng m i s r epr es ent at i ons and omi s s i ons r egar di ng the pr opel l erati s s ue fo ll ow i ng FA A cert i fi cat i on of the pr opel le r/undamped engi ne combi nat i on. A s not ed above , H a rtz e ll h a d a c o n ti n u in g o b lig a tio n u n d e r its D O A sta tu s to compl yw i t h t he r epor t i ng r equi r ements of 14 C

. F. R

. § 21. 3. A ccor di ng t o t he Rob i n s o n s , “ Har t z e l l ’ s c o n t i nui ng ai r w or t hi nes s m eas ur es , appr oved t h rou gh i t s D O A , di d not r es ol ve the i l l egal vi br at orys tr es s es di s cl os ed byr epor t213 and d id n o t d is c lo s e th e e x c e s s iv e v ib r a t i o n s to th e F A A .” (A p p e llee ’s B r. at 7 .) In f a c t, t h e re h a v e b e e n a p p ro x im a tely for typr i orbl ade f

ai l ur es i nvol vi ng the s ame pr opel l er/ engi ne c o m b in a tio n s a s th e o n e a t is s u e . ( See App

. 1 8- 19. ) T he R obi ns ons es s ent i al l yar gue thatH art zel l on sev er al occa s i ons11 bl amed ot herfac t or s – par t i cul ar l ypi l oterro r – i ns t ead of d i s c l o s i n g t h a tt h e r e wa s a p r o p e l l e r/ e n g i n e v i b r a t i o n p r o b l e m. ( See A p p . 5 9 6 , 6 2 1 , 6 2 5 , 6 2 9 .) Fol l ow i ng t he compl et i on of di s covery , H art zel l br ought a mot i on for s um m aryj udgm entcont endi ng t hatthe s ui tw as barr ed byt he ei ght een- y ear s t atut e of r epos e ena ct ed under G A R A , 4 9 U

. S

. C

. § 4 0 1 0 1 n o te § 2 (a). T h e D istri ct C o u rt agr eed w i t h t he R obi ns ons thatm at er i al i s s ues of fa ctexi s t ed as to w h ethe r th e G A R A ex ce p ti o n ap p li ed an d d en ied H artzell ’s m ot i on. H ar t zel l fi l ed a t i m el y appea l and ur ges us t o r eac h the m er i t s of t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on underthe col l at er al or der doctr i ne. II. O urj ur i s di ct i on as an appe l l at e courtexten ds under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291 overa “f i nal or der ” of a di s t r i ct cour t
. A n or der i s “fi nal ” w hen i t“t erm i nat es the l i t i gat i on betw een the part i es o n th e m e rits o f

th e c a se a n d lea v e s n o th in g to b e d o n e b u t to enfor ce by exec ut i on w hat has been de t erm i ned. ” R i cher s on v. Jones , 551 F. 2d 918, 922 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( quot i ng St

. Louis , I r on Mountai n and S. Ry. C o. v. S. E xpr es s C o. , 108 U

. S. 24, 28- 29 (18 8 3 )). In m o st case s, a d en ial o f a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entdoes notqual i fyas a fi nal or derbeca us e, “fa rfr om f in a llyd e c id in g a c a se , itis a d e c isio n to p e r m it l iti g a tio n to cont i nue. ” H

am i l t on v. Leavy , 322 F. 3d 776, 782 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (cit ati o n o m itted). I n C ohen v. B enef

i ci al Loan C or

p. , 3 3 7 U

. S

. 5 4 1 (19 4 9 ), how ever , t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned that§ 1291 i s t o be12 gi ven a “ pr act i cal r atherthan a t echni cal cons t ruct i on, ” and that th e re is a “ sm a ll cla ss ” o f n o n -f in a l o r d e rs “ w h ich f

in a lly det e r mi n e c l a i ms o f

r i g h ts e p a r a b l e f

r o m, a n d c o l l a t e r a l t o, r i ght s as s er t ed i n t he act i on, t oo i m por t antt o be deni ed r evi ew a n d to o in d e p e n d e n t o f

th e c a u se itse lf to re q u ire th a t ap p e llate c o n s id e ra tio n b e d e f

e rr e d u n til th e w h o le c a s e is a d ju d i c a t e d .” I d. a t 5 4 6 ; s ee al

s o D ot z el v. A s hbr i dge , 438 F. 3d 320, 323 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); B ellA tla n ti c-P a . , Inc

. v. P a . P u b

. Uti l. C o m m ’n , 273 F .3 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); I n r e Ford Mot orC o. , 110 F. 3d 9 5 4 , 9 5 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). C ohen and i t s pr ogenyhave be en i nt erpr et ed t o perm i t t he i m m edi at e appe al of an otherw i s e nonfi nal coll at eral order i f the order : (1) con cl usi velydeterm i nes a di s put ed l egal ques t i on, ( 2) r es ol ves an i m port anti s s ue c o m p lete lyse p a r a b le f

ro m th e m e rits o f

th e a c tio n , an d (3 ) is e f f e c tiv e ly u n re v ie w a b le o n a p p e a l f ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t. B e ll A tla n tic , 273 F. 3d at342. T he Supr eme C our thas r efe r r ed t o the co l l at er al or der d o c trin e a s a “ n a rro w e x c e p tio n ” th a t co n tain s “ str in g e n t” re q u ir e m e n ts
. D igi tal E qui p. C or p. v. D es ktop D i r ect

, I nc. , 511 U .S . 8 6 3 , 8 6 8 (1 9 9 4 ). S trict c o n stru c tio n o f th e d o c trin e is groun ded on “t he longst and i ng c on gress i on al po l i cyagainst pi ece m eal appea l s t hat under l i es t he fi nal j udgm entrul e. ” W e, In c . v. C ity o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , 1 7 4 F

. 3 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 4 -25 (3d C ir

. 1999)

. T o pr eventt he un w arr ant ed expa ns i on of the doctr i ne, “the i s s ue of a ppeal abi l i t yunder § 1291 i s t o be det erm i ned for th e e n tire ca teg o ry to w h ich a c laim b e lo n g s, w ith o u t re g a rd to the c h an ce that the lit igation at ha n d m ig h t be s p ee d ed , o r a
‘ par t i cul ari nj us t i c[e ] ’ avert ed bypr om ptappel l at e cou rt l i t i g a t i on. ” D igi talE qui p. , 5 1 1 U .S . at 8 6 8 ; s ee W e, I nc. , 174 F. 3d at 325 ( “Thi s appr oach r efl ect s t he C our t ’ s i ns i s t ence t hat13 t he fi nal i t yr equi r ementof § 1291 m us tnotbe r educe d t o a ca s eby

- cas e det erm i nat i on. ”)

. T hus , cas e- by

- cas e cons i der at i ons su c h a s w h e th e r th e lit ig a tio n w ill b e e x p e d ited b yim m e d iate r e v i e w, o rwhe t h e ra n e r r o n e o u s ru l i n g wi l l i n c u ri n c r eas ed expense s , ar e notfac t or s t hatcan j us t i fyr evi ew undert he c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e . B e ll A tla n tic , 273 F. 3d at343. M o re o v e r, sim p lyc h a ra c ter izin g a rig h t as a n irre p a ra b le e n tit lem e n t n o t to sta n d trial is in su f f icie n t f o r a n a p p e a l to f

a ll undert he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne, as “vi r tual l yeveryr i ghtthat coul d b e enf

or ced a ppr opr i at el ybypr etr i al di s m i s s al m i ght loo selyb e d esc ri b ed as c o n fe rri n g ‘a righ t no t t o stan d tr ial

. ’” D igi talE qui

p. , 511 U

. S. at873. A s the S u pr eme C our thas poi nt ed out , t he col l at er al or der doctr i ne i s exce edi ngl ynarr ow b e c a u se n u m e ro u s a d v e rse p re trial ru lin g s c a n n o t b e c o m p lete ly re m e d ied f

o llo w in g f

in a l ju d g m e n t: E ven a s t heyhave r ecogni zed the nee d for im m e d iate a p p e a ls un d e r § 1 2 9 1 to v in d ica te r i ght s t hatw oul d be “i r r etr i evabl y l os t ” i f r evi ew w er e confi ned t o fi nal j udgm ent s onl y , ourcas es have be en at l eas tas emphat i c i n r ecogni zi ng t hat th e ju r is d ictio n o f

th e c o u rts o f

a p p e a ls s h o u ld no t , and cann ot, dep end on a party ’s agil i t yi n so charact eri zi ng t he ri gh tassert ed. T his m ustbe so becau se the st ron g b i as of § 12 91 against pi ece m eal appea l s al m os t neveroper at es w i t hout s om e cos t
. A ful l yl i t i gat ed ca s e ca n no m or e be unt r i e d t h a n t h e l a w’ s p r o v e rb i a l b e l l c a n be unrung, and al m os teverypr etr i al o r t r i al or der m i ght be cal l ed “ef

fec t i vel y unr evi ew abl e” i n the14 se n se th a t re lief

f r o m e rro r c a n n e v e r e x ten d to rew ri ti n g h ist o ry . T h u s, erro n eo u s ev iden ti ary r u l i n g s , g r a n t s o r deni al s of at t or ney di s qual i fi cat i on, and r estr i ct i ons on t he r i ght s of i n t e r v e n i n g p a r t i e s , m a y b u r d e n l i t i g a n t s i n w a ys th a t ar e o n lyim p e rf

e c tlyre p a ra b le b ya p p e llate r ever s al of a f

i nal d is t r i ctcour tj udgm ent ; and ot hererr or s , r eal enough, w i l l nots eem se r i ous enough t o w arr antr ever s al atal l w hen r evi ew ed aft er a l on g tr i al on t he m eri t s. In st i l l othercases, an err on eou s di stri ctcou rtdecis i on w i l l , as a pr act i cal m at t er , s ound t he “de ath knel l ” form any p lain tiff s’ c laim s th a t m ig h t h a v e g o n e f o rw a rd if pr om pterr orcorr ect i on had been an opt i on. B ut if im m e d iate a p p e llate re v iew w e re a v a ilab le e v e rysu c h tim e , C o n g re ss ’s f in a l d e c isio n ru le w o u ld en d u p a p rettyp u n yo n e, an d so the m ere i dent i fi cat i on of s om e i nt er est tha tw oul d be “i r r etr i evabl yl os t ” has never s uffe r ed t o m eetthe t hi r d C ohen re q u ire m e n t. I d. at 87 2 (cit ati o n s o m itted). W e h a v e n o ty e ta d d r e s s e d whe t h e ra n o r d e rd e n y i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent on a st atute of repose defe nse qu al i fi es as a co ll ateral o rde r un d er C ohen an d it s pr ogeny . E ach pa r t yhas offe r ed compet i ng anal ogi es i n su pportof thei rr es pect i ve p o sitio n s. T h e R o b in so n s a ss e rt th a t th e o rd e r is n o t ap p e a lab le beca us e w e have expl i ci t l yhel d t hatdefe ndant s ca n notappea l fr om a p r e- t r i al or derdeny i ng a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e. S e e B e ll-A tla n tic , 2 7 3 F .3 d a t 3 4 5 -4 6 . In c o n tra st, H a rtz e ll15 ar gues t hata dec i s i on on a s t atut e of r epos e is m o re aki n t o a d e c isio n d e n yin g a n a ss e rtio n o f q u a lifie d im m u n ity , w h ich is a p p e a la b le to th e e x te n t it to u c h e s u p o n a n is s u e o f la w . See H am i l t on , 3 2 2 F .3 d a t 7 8 2 ; G iu ffre v . B iss e ll , 31 F. 3d 1241, 1 2 4 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ). A r evi ew of ourcas el aw confi r m s thatthe col l at er al or der d o c trin e h a s b e e n a p p lied o n lyto a n a rro w u n iv e rse o f rig h ts p ri m aril y roo ted i n co n sti tuti o n al o r statu tory p rov isi o n s o r a c o m p e tin g p u b li c p o lic yra tio n a le

. See 15A C har l es A l an W ri g h t, A rt h u r R . M ille r & E d w a rd H . C o o p e r, Feder al P ract i ce an d P roc edu re § 3914. 6, at531 ( 2d ed. 1992) ( “The t heoryt hats om e r i ght s ar e d esi gned t o pr ot ectagai ns tt he b u rd e n s o f

tr ia l a n d s u p p o rt a p p e a l f ro m a re f u s a l to d is m is s . . . i s l ike l yt o be l i m i t ed narr ow l y . ”)

. T he es s ent i al ques t i on t hat m u st be a n s w e re d is th e n ature o f th e righ t t o b e p rotec ted. In cases w here the co l l at eral order doctr i ne is app l i ed, t he int eres t a t sta k e is s o im p o rta n t th a t itis c o m p a ra b le to a n im m u n ity f ro m su it th a t ca n n o t b e re m e d ied u n les s im m e d iate a p p e llate re v ie w is ta k e n . I

d. Forexampl e, i n A bney v

. U ni t ed Stat es , 431 U

. S. 651 (1 9 7 7 ), th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t a c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t co u ld a p p e a l im m e d iate ly t h e d is trict c o u rt’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to d ism iss o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e in d ictm e n t v io la ted d o u b le je o p a rd yp ro te c tio n s . I d. at659. T he C our texpl ai ned thatthe part i cul arFi fth A m endmentr i ghtati s s ue w as a cons t i tut i onal r i ght“n o t to f

ace t r i al atal l , ” i d. at662 n. 7, w hi ch w oul d be fo rev er lost i f th e de fe n d an t w as fo rce d to g o to tr ial : “[T ]he re can be no doubt tha t s uch or der s cons t i tut e a c om pl et e, form al an d , in th e tr ial co u rt , fin al rejecti o n o f a crim inal d ef en d an t’ s16 doubl e j eopar dycl ai m . T her e ar e s i m pl yno fur t hers t eps t hat can be t aken i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o avoi d t he tr i al t he def endant m ai nt ai ns i s b arr ed bythe Fi fth A m endment ’ s guar ant ee. ” I d. at660. Si m i l ar l y , i n Hel s t os kiv. Meanor , 4 4 2 U

. S

. 5 0 0 (19 7 9 ), t h e Cou r t h e l d t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f a mot i o n t o di s m i s s an i ndi ctm ent p rem ise d on t he Speec h and D ebat e C l aus e of the C on st i tuti on w as subject t o i m m ediat e app el l at e revi ew becau se t hatC l aus e w as des i gned t o pr ot ect C o n g res s m en fr om bei ng expos ed t o l i abi l i t yforact i ons t aken on the floo r o f t he le g is la tu re . I

d. a t 5 0 8 ; s ee al

s o P

. R

. A queduct & Se w erA uth. v. Metcal f & E ddy, I

nc. , 506 U

. S. 139 ( 1993) ( hol di ng thatent i t i es cl ai m i ng t o be “a r m s of the s t at e” m ay appea l an or derdeny i ng E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t yunderthe col l at er al or der d o c trin e ); Stack v. B oy le , 342 U

. S. 1 ( 1951) ( perm i t t i ng i m m edi at e appe al of deni al of m ot i on t o r educe bai l on gr ounds th a t itw a s a n e x c e ss iv e p e n a ltyin v io latio n o f E ig h th A m endment )

. T he C our thas also det erm i ned thatdeni al s of abs ol ut e and qua l i fi ed i m m uni t ys erve compel l i ng publ i c ends w hi ch w oul d be i r r etr i evabl y l os t i f offi ci al s w er e for ced t o go to tr ia l. Nixo n v . F itzg e ra ld , 457 U

. S. 731, 749 ( 1982) ( hol di ng th a t d e n ial o f a b so lu te im m u n ity im m e d iate ly w a s a p p e a lab le beca us e i m m uni t yw as a “f unct i onal l ym andat ed i nci dentof the P reside n t’ s u n iqu e o ff

ice, ro o ted in the . .

. sep ara ti o n o f p o w ers a n d su p p o rte d b yo u r h isto ry ” ); Mitch e ll v. Fo rs y th , 47 2 U. S. 5 1 1 , 5 2 5 -2 6 (1 9 8 5 ) (c o n c lu d in g in th e q u a lifie d im m u n ity con t ext t hat an “essent i al at t ri bu t e” of freedom from sui tfor past conductt hatdi d notvi ol at e a c l earl yes t abl i s hed r i ghtw as an “ent i t l ementnott o stand tr i al orfac e the otherbur dens of li ti g ati o n , ” w h ich c o u ld o therw ise i m p e d e the o ff ici al’s d iscreti o n aryac ti o n s).17 I n t he vas tm aj or i t yof ca s es, our Courtand the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thave r ej ect ed the appl i cat i on of the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne t o non- fi nal or der s . I n fac t , the narr ow s cope of t he col l at er al doctr i ne mig h tbe bett erunder s t ood by exami n i n g t h o s e o r d e r s f r o m w h i c h c o u r t s h a v e h e l d th a tan i m m edi at e appe al m ay notbe t aken. Forexampl e, cour t s have hel d t hatdeci s i ons deny i n g t he fol l ow i ng defe ns es w er e not appea l abl e undert he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne:

• a n o rd e r d e n y in g a m o tio n to di s m i s s forl ack of per s onal ju ri s d ic tio n , V

an C auw enber

ghe v. B i ard , 4 8 6 U

. S

. 5 1 7 (19 8 8 );

• a n o rd e r d e n ying a m o tio n to di s m i s s on the gr ounds thatan extr a d i t e dp e r s o n w as i m m une fr om c iv il p ro c e s s , i d. ;

• a defe ns e thata s ui tw as barr ed by a pr i ors ett l ementorrel eas e, D igi talE qui

p. , 511 U

. S. at 869 (1 9 9 4 ); T

r a n s te c h In d u s ., In c . v . Z Sept i c C l ean , 5 F

. 3 d 5 1 , 5 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 );

• a d e f

e ns e as s er t i ng N

oerrP enni ngt on im m u n ity to s u it, W e, I nc. , 1 7 4 F

. 3 d at 32 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 );18 • a dec i s i on deny i ng bo th s t atut e of lim itatio n s a n d r e s ju d ica ta d e f e n s e s , B e ll-A tla n tic , 273 F. 3d at 345- 46;

• a dec i s i on deny ing di s m i s s al of an i ndi ctm entforan al leged vi ol at i on of F eder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pro cedur e 6( a) , w hi ch forbi ds t he d iscl o su re o f se cre t gran d jury i n f o r m a t i o n , M id la n dA sp h a lt C o r p. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 8 9 U. S. 7 9 4 , 7 9 9 -80 0 (19 8 9 );

• a deci s i on deny i ng eff ectt o a cont r act ual choi ce- of- venue p ro v is io n , Lauro Li nes , S. R

. L. v. C has s er , 4 9 0 U

. S

. 4 9 5 (19 8 9 ). T he keycons i dera ti o n i n eac h of thes e ca s es w as w hethert he cl ai m ed r i ghts ought t o be pr ot ect ed w as char act er i zed as a r i ght to im m u n ity f

ro m s u it o r a d e f

e n s e to lia b ility. W

e, I nc. , 174 F .3 d a t 3 2 6

. In e a c h d e c isio n e n u m e ra ted a b o v e , the c o u rts char act er i zed the defe ns es as defe ns es t o l i abi l i t y , w hi ch m aybe c o n s id e re d f

o llo w in g a f

in a l ju d g m e n t. See , e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. H ol l yw ood Mot orC arC o. , 458 U

. S. 263, 269 ( 1982) ( s t at i ng t hatt her e i s “a c ruci al di s t i nct i on betw een a ri ght not t o be tr i ed an d a righ t w h o se re m ed yreq u ir es th e d ism issal of ch arg es” ). T w o o f t h e d e c is io n s re f e re n c e d a b o v e , W

e, I nc. and B e llA tla n tic , ar e part i cul ar l yi ns t ruct i ve t o ouranal y s i s of the pr e s e nt19 c a s e . I n W

e, I nc. , t he pl ai nt i ff br oughts ui taft erthe C i t yof P h ilad e lp h ia is su e d a c e a se o p e ra tio n s o rd e r to th e p lain tiff to s hutdow n t w o adj ace ntbus i nes s es neart he U ni ver s i t yof Pennsy lvan ia (“P en n ”) D en tal S ch o o l w ith o u t fi rstp r ovi di ng the pl ai nt iff w it h n ot i ce oran oppor tuni t yfora hea r i ng. 174 F. 3d at324. T he pl ai nt i ff br oughtsu itagai ns tbot h t he C i t yand Penn, ar gui ng t hati tw as d epr i ved of pr oper t yw i t houtdue pr oces s of l aw . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t f

iled b y P e n n , w h ich h a d c laim e d im m u n ity fors om e of i t s act i ons undert he N oer r - P enni ngt on doctr i ne. T h a t d o ct ri ne co nfers i m m un i t yfrom l i abil i t yun der the F i rs t A m endmentfor c onductr es ul t i ng fr om pet i t i oni ng a g o v e rn m e n t a l b o d y . I

d. at327. O n appea l , Penn as s ert ed that w e coul d e x er ci s e j ur i s di ct i on underthe col l at er al or derdoctr i ne becaus e N

oer r - P enni ngt on i m m uni t yw as aki n t o abs ol ut e and qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . W e r ej ect ed thatar gum en t, fi ndi ng that

“ t h e P e t i t i o n C l a u s e o f t h e F i r s tA m e n d m e n tn e i t h e re n j o ys ‘sp e c ia l F irst A m e n d m e n t sta tu s’ n o r c o n f e rs a n ‘a b so lu te i m m uni t y ’ forpr i vi l ege. ” I d. W e ex pl ai ned thatal t hough t he N oer r - P enni ngt on d o c trin e b e sto w s im m u n ity f ro m liab ili tyto pr eventFi r s tA m endmentr i ght s fr om bei ng chi l l ed, i tdoes not c o n f e r im m u n ityf

ro m su it. K eyt o ourdeci s i on i n W e, I nc. w as t he dist inct i on b e tw e e n im m u n ityin v o lv in g a p u b lic o f f icia l an d im m u n ity i nvol vi ng a pr i vat e defe ndant

. W e adopt ed t he anal y s i s fr om t he Seventh C i r cui ti n S eg n i v . C o m m e rc ia l O ffi c e o f S p a in , 816 F. 2d 34 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 7 ) , whi ch di s t i ngui s hed N oer r - P enni ngt on im m u n ityf

ro m q u a lifie d , ab so lu te, a n d “ sta te a c tio n ” im m u n ity20 on t he gr ound t hatt he l at t er doctr i ne[s ] “had be en i nt erpr et ed t o create an i m m uni t yfr om s ui tand n o t ju st f ro m ju d g m e n t

– to sp a re sta te o f f icia ls t he bur dens and unce r t ai nt i es of the l it igat i on its e lf a s w e ll a s th e c o s t o f

a n a d v e rs e ju d g m e n t.” T he poss i bi l i t y t hatthe “bur dens of s ui t
. . . m i ght d e t e r[ p u b l i c off

i ci al s ] fr om vi gor ous exec ut i on of t hei roffi ce [ w as ] a consi der at i on m i s s i ng i n t he c a s e o f th e p ri v a te d e f

e n d a n t.” 174 F. 3d at329 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. W e agr eed w i t h t he d i s t i n c t i o n d r a w n b y Segnibetw een publ i c off i ci al i m m uni t yand pr i vat e part yi m m uni t y , not i ng t hatw e had be en “una bl e t o fi nd a n yc a se h o ld in g th a t th e b u rd e n o f lit ig a tio n o n a p riv a te d e f e n d a n t ju stif

ies a n im m u n ityf

ro m su it a s w e ll as a d e f e n se to l i abi l i t y . ” I

d. A s a r e s u lt , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e in ter e sts pr ot ect ed byt he N

oer r - P enni ngt on d o c trin e c o u ld b e f u lly v in d ic a te d b ya n a p p e a l f o llo w in g a tr ia l. I

d. at330. I n B e ll-A tla n tic , w e det erm i ned thata de ci s i on deny i ng a sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s d e f

e n se w a s n o t im m e d iate lya p p e a lab le u nd er the co l l at eral order doctr i ne. In so doing, w e again di s cus s ed the di s t i nct i on betw een a n i m m uni t yfr om s ui t and a defe nse t o li abil i t y , exp l ai ning t hat “[t ]he f act
. . . t hat a defense m a yw a r ra n t p re -tria l d ism iss a l is n o t d isp o sitiv e o f w h e th e r it i s i m m edi at el yappea l abl e. ” B e ll-A tla n tic , 273 F. 3d at345. R ather , t he keyi nqui r yi s t he natu re o f the r i ghtati s s ue and w h e th e r th a t rig h t w o u ld b e f o rf e ited if n o t v in d ica ted p rio r to t r i al

. Fo l l o wi n g t h a td i c h o t o my , we o f f e r e d t h e f

o l l o w i ng expl anat i on of w h y a d eci s i on deny i ng a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons21 defe ns e w as noti m m edi at ely ap peal abl e underthe col l at er al or derdoctr i ne: S tatu tes o f

lim itatio n a re n o t g u a ra n tee s th a t su it and t ri al w i l l no toccu r on un t i m el ycl ai m s. L i m i t at i ons per i ods ar e des i gned t o for ecl os e the pot ent i al fori nacc ur aci es and unfa i r nes s br ought a b o u t b ya f

in d in g o f

liab ili tyb a se d o n sta le evidence. T his i nter esti s not i n d efen ding aga i nst o ld c laim s, b u t an in ter e st in n o t b e in g h e ld ul t i m at el yl i abl e o n t hatol d cl ai m bas ed on ol d, l es s r el i abl e evi dence

. Such an i n teresti s not i r r etri ev abl yl os ti f a pa r t ym us tw ai tunt i l aft er f in a l ju d g m e n t to a p p e a l th e a d v e rse ru lin g a n d to v i n d i c a t e t h e r i g h tt o b e f r e e f r o m l i a b i l i t y. I d. at 34 6. T hu s, w e held that the st atute of l i m i t at i on s defen se c o u ld b e e f

f e c tiv e lyre v iew e d o n a p p e a l f ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t. I d. I n ar gui ng t hat a s t atut e of r epos e s houl d be tr eat ed l i ke q u a lifie d im m u n ity , H a rtz e ll r e lie s h e a v ilyu p o n th e N in th C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n Es tat e of Kennedy v. B el lHel i copt er Textr on , 283 F. 3d 1107 ( 9th C i r . 2002)

. I n Kennedy , the N in th C i r cui tdet erm i ned thati tcoul d exer ci s e appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on o v e ra d e c i s i o n d e ny i n g a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s u n d e rt h e GARA s t a tu t e o f

r e p o s e . Th e ma

j o r i t y op i ni o n c o mp a r e d t h e GARA s t atut e of r epos e t o a form of qual i fi ed i m m uni t yand conc l uded th a t “the G A R A st atute of repose .

. . creat es an ex pli c it st atutory ri gh t no t t o st and t ri al w hich w ou l d b e i rr et ri evab l yl ost s h o u ld [ th e d e f

e n d a n t] b e f

o rc e d to d e f

e n d its e lf in a f

u ll tr ia l.”S ect i on 16 58 provides as fol l ow s: 9 (a ) E x c e p t a s o th e rw ise p ro v id e d b y law , a c iv il ac ti o n ar i s i ng underan A ctof C ongr es s enac t ed aft ert he dat e of the ena ctm entof thi s s ect i on m ay notbe comm ence d l at ert han 4 y ear s aft ert he cause o f act i on accrues. ( b) N ot w i t hs t andi ng s ubs ect i on ( a) , a pr i vat e r i ght o f a c tio n th a t in v o lv e s a c laim o f f r a u d , d e c e it, m ani pul at i on, orcontr i vance i n contr avent i on of a r egul at or yr equi r ementconc e rn i n g th e s ecur i t i es l aw s , as defi ned i n s ect i on 3(a)( 47) of the S e c ur i t i e s Ex c h a n g e Ac to f 1 9 3 4 ( 1 5 U. S

. C. 78c( a) (47 )), m aybe br oughtnotl at ert han the ea rl ier of

-- (1 ) 2 y e a rs a f

ter th e d isc o v e ryo f

th e f a c ts cons t i tut i ng the vi ol at i on; or

22 I d. at 1110. T he maj or i t yr ej ect ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s ar gum entt hat t he st a tu te of repose w as m ore aki n to a st atute of l i m i t at i on s, and r ender ed a c oncl us oryhol di ng t hat t he r i ght confe r r ed under t he s t atut e of r epos e w as a r i ght “t o be fr ee fr om t he bur dens of t r i al

. ” I d. at1111. A d iss e n tin g o p in io n b yJu d g e P a e z , h o w e v e r, is m o re in l i ne w i t h Supr eme C our tand Thi r d C ir cui tpr ece dent s . T he d i s s e n t n o t e d t h a t t h e s t a tu t e o f r e p o s e l a n g u a g e i n GARA, w h ich p rov i des t hat“no ci vi l act i on . . . m aybe br ought , ” w as verys i m i l ar t o t he l anguage us ed i n t he feder al defa ul ts t atut e of lim itatio n s, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 8

. T h e d iss e n t ex p lain e d th a t, “in 9( 2) 5 y ear s aft ers uch vi ol at i on. 28 U

. S. C

. § 1658. 23 em ploy ing tr adit i on al t ext for s t atutes of li m i t at i on s, C on gress i nt ended [in G A R A ] onl yt o confe ra def ens e t o l i abi l i t y , not i m m uni t y fr om s ui t and a c ol l at er al appea l r i ght

. ” Kennedy , 283 F. 3d at1115 ( Paez, J

. , di s s ent i ng)

. I n addi t i on, J udge Paez s ur vey ed the hi s t or i cal r at i onal e forappl y i ng t he col l at er al or der doctr i ne t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t ydeci s i ons . H e found thatthe qual i fi ed i m m uni t yexcept i on w as r oot ed i n pr event i ng the s oci al cos t s of s ub

j e c t i n g g o v e rn me nt al ent i t i es t o br oad- r angi ng d isco v ery . T h ese so cietal co sts, Ju d g e P ae z p o inted o u t, “a re con s pi c uo us l ya bs e ntfr om” the G A RA s t a tut e of r e pose defe n se: “G A R A ’ s purpos e i s nott o r el i eve ge ner al avi at i on m anufa ctur ers fr om s oci al cos t s , butr ather , s ol el yfr om t he economi c cos ts o f p roductl i abi l i t ycl ai m s – the s ame t ype of economi c cos t s fac ed byanydefe ndant in an ac t i on al l egi ng t or t i ous conduct

. ” I

d. at 11 1 4 (P ae z, J. , d issen ti n g ). I n l i ghtof the ca se law , t her e ar e fourpr i m aryr eas ons w hyt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng deny i ng ap p li cat i on of the G A R A s t atut e of r epo s e s houl d notbe appe al abl e underthe c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e . F irst, th e in ter e st pr o tec ted b ya sta tu te o f re p o se is m u c h m o re sim ilar to a sta tu te o f lim itatio n s th a n to a gra nt of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . A l t hough w e have not ed thatthe i nt er es tpr ot ect ed bya s t at ut e of r epos e i s s om ew hatdi ffe r ent f ro m th a t p ro te c te d b ya s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , s ee W

oes s nerv. A i rLi qui de, I

nc. , 2 4 2 F

. 3 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 2 n . 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ), b o th are des i gned pr i m ar i l yt o pr ot ectpr ivate p art i es fr om l i abi l i t yon24 sta le c la im s. A s J u d g e P a e z p o in ted o u t in h is d iss e n t in Kennedy , t he fac t t hat t he l anguage us ed i n t he G A R A s t atut e of r epos e w as s i m i l ar t o t he fe der al cat ch- al l s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i n 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 6 5 8 e v i n c e s a Co n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n tth a tth e two pr ovi s i ons w oul d r ece i ve s i m i l artr eatm enti n th e c o l l a t e r al or der c o n tex t. Second, as not ed i n W

e, I nc. and i n t he di s s ent i ng opi ni on i n Kennedy , th e re is a cle a r dif f e re n c e b e tw e e n a n im m u n ity g ra n ted to a p u b lic o f

f icia l an d a n im m u n ityg ra n ted to a p riv a te defe n d an t. W e have r ecogni zed i n t he form ercont extt hatan o rd e r su rro u n d in g a n im m u n ity d e c isio n is i m m e d iate ly appea l abl e und er t he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne t o ens ur e that publ i c off

i ci al s ar e notdet err ed fr om vi gor ous l ycarr y i ng outt he d isc re tio n a ryf

u n c tio n s o f

th e ir o f f ice

. W e h a v e n o t d o n e so in t he l at t erbeca us e the s ame publ i c pol i cyrati onal e does not e x ten d to w h e th e r a pr iv a te p a rtyd e f e n d a n t sh o u ld b e f

o rc e d to w ai tunt i l aft er a fi nal j udgm ent t o r emedy an i ncorr ectdeci s i on. T h ird , the G A R A sta tu te o f re p o se is no t a p u re im m u n ity beca us e i tcont ai ns exce pt i ons underw hi ch i m m uni t y does not at t ach. O ne s uch exc ept i on, thata know i ng m i s r epr es ent at i on r ender s t he s t atut e of r epos e i nappl i cab l e, does nothave a n an alog u e in th e c o n te x t o f q u ali fied im m u n ity , in w h ich th ere ar e no “e xcept i ons ” t o gr ant i ng i m m uni t yi f a publ i c off i ci al has n o t violated a clearly estab li sh ed ri g h t. H o lding to the co n tr ary i n t hi s cas e w oul d be i ni m i cal to o u r adm oni t i on “thatt he f i n a l i t y r e q u i r e m e n to f

§ 1 2 9 1 m u s t n o t b e r e d u c e d t o a c a s e - b ycas e det erm i nat i on. ” W e, I nc. , 174 F. 3d at325.W e ar e pr ecl uded fr om r evi ew i ng atthi s s t age of the 10 p roc ee d ing s the D istri ct C o u rt ’s i d en ti fic a tio n o f f ac ts th at are 25 F i nall y , even i f w e w ere t o h old that a s t atute of re p ose i s t h e f u n c t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n to f

a d e c i s i o n o n q u a l i f

i e d i m m u n i t y, t he C ohen f

a c to rs m ili tate a g a in st re c o g n izin g a p p e llate ju risd ictio n b e c a u se th e a p p lica b ili ty o f th e sta tu te o f re p o se is in ter tw in e d w ith a d e c isio n o n th e m e rits. T h is f a c t cle a rly d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e p r e s e n tc a s e f r o m Kennedy . T h e re , the N in th C i r cui tw as fac ed notw i th a factua l di s put e as t o t he appl i cabi l i t yof the § 2 G A R A exce pt i on, but w i t h a l egal i s s ue: w hi ch of tw o undi s put ed dat es tr i gger ed the run ni ng of the G AR A l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d

. Her e , t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t f o u n d t hat t her e w as a f

actual di s put e r el at i ng t o the § 2 exc ept i on. T hat d e ter m in a ti o n is s im ilar to a f in d in g in th e q u a lifie d im m u n ity c o n tex t th a t th e re a re d isp u ted f a c ts re latin g to th e im m u n ity i s s ue. I n t hat cont ext , w e have exer ci s ed appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on undert he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne t o r evi ew a pr e- t r i al deni al of im m u n ity “ o n ly to th e e x te n t th a t it r a is e s q u e s tio n s o f la w .” H am i l t on , 3 2 2 F .3 d a t 7 8 2 ; see G i uff f re , 3 1 F

. 3 d at 12 4 5 (“[ A ]n o rd e r d e n y in g q u a lif

ie d o r a b s o lu te im m u n ity, t o the ex t ent that the or dert ur ns on an is s ue of l aw , is i m m e d iate ly a p p e a lab le under the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. ”) ( emphasi s added a nd ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he r eas on i s t hats u ch a situ at i on i s not “compl et el ys epar at e fr om t he m eri t s ”; i n otherw or ds , t he m er i t s i s s ue i s i nt er t w i ned w i t h t he i m m uni t i es i s s ue. T h e sa m e re su ltap p li es in this c ase . T h e D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned thatt her e i s an i s s ue of f ac t reg ardi ng w hether H a rtz e ll m isre p re se n ted in f o rm a tio n to th e F A A

. N o t o n lyis 10s u bj e c t to g e n u in e d is p u te
. See H am i l t on , 322 F. 3d at782 ( ci t i ng Z icc a rd i v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 288 F. 3d 57, 59, 61 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 )). 26 a d e ter m in a tio n o n th a t issu e re lev a n t to th e u n d e r lyin g m e rits of the cl ai m , i ti s al s o i m por t antt o det erm i ne w h ethe r th e § 2 G A R A e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s . Th u s , i n a d d i t i o n t o n o te x e r c i s i ng a p p e llate ju risd ictio n o v e r th is a p p e a l in th e im m u n ityc o n tex t, w e s houl d not do s o beca us e t he i s s ue i s nots epar abl e fr om t he m eri t s. W hen al l of thes e fa ct or s ar e cons i der ed i n t he cont extof our h i s t o r i c a l r e l u c t a n c e t o e x p a n d th e s c o p e o f th e c o l l a t e r al o r d e r d o c trin e , itb e c o m e s c lea r th a t w e sh o u ld d e c lin e to e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n o v e r H a rtz e ll’s a p p e a l. I V. A s t a tu t e o f

r e p o s e s i mp l yd oe s no t i mp l i c a t e t h e s a me publ i c pol i cyconce r ns as a deni al of abs ol ut e orqual i fi ed i m m uni t y . I n addi t i on, the deci s i on on w hetherthe s t atut e of r epos e appl i es i n t hi s part i cul arcas e i s i nt ert w i ned w i t h a deci s i on on t he mer i t s . T her e exi s t s a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f a c t a s to w h e th e r th e G A R A e x c e p tio n a p p lies , w h ich w o u ld pr ecl ude ourcons i der at ion of the appe al atthi s t i m e underthe C ohen fac t or s and ourj ur i s prud en ce i n t he ar ea of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . For thes e r eas ons , w e dec l i ne t o al l ow an in ter lo c u to ryc h a lle n g e to th e d e c isio n d e n y in g th e m o tio n to d ism iss u n d e r th e G A R A sta tu te o f re p o se a n d w ill d ism iss th is a p p e a l.