Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/169/988/491002/
Timestamp: 2019-11-19 17:30:47
Document Index: 677994726

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1332', '§ 1113', '§ 1131', '§ 1131', '§ 1113', '§ 1131', '§ 1154', '§ 1131', '§ 831', '§ 1291']

Eugene E. Shanks, Sr., Doing Business As Flitelinemaintenance Incorporated, Doing Business As Flitelinemaintenance; Farm and Ranch Aerial Applicator Servicesincorporated; Gulf Coast Ag Incorporated, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Alliedsignal, Inc., Doing Business As Garrett Enginedivision; et al., Defendants,alliedsignal, Inc., Doing Business As Garrett Enginedivision; Peter Baker, Doing Business As Garrett Enginedivision, Doing Business As Alliedsignal, Inc; Sandy Meour,doing Business As Garrett Engine Division, Doing Business Asalliedsignal, Inc., Defendants-appellants, 169 F.3d 988 (5th Cir. 1999) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1999 › Eugene E. Shanks, Sr., Doing Business As Flitelinemaintenance Incorporated, Doing Business As Flitel...
Eugene E. Shanks, Sr., Doing Business As Flitelinemaintenance Incorporated, Doing Business As Flitelinemaintenance; Farm and Ranch Aerial Applicator Servicesincorporated; Gulf Coast Ag Incorporated, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Alliedsignal, Inc., Doing Business As Garrett Enginedivision; et al., Defendants,alliedsignal, Inc., Doing Business As Garrett Enginedivision; Peter Baker, Doing Business As Garrett Enginedivision, Doing Business As Alliedsignal, Inc; Sandy Meour,doing Business As Garrett Engine Division, Doing Business Asalliedsignal, Inc., Defendants-appellants, 169 F.3d 988 (5th Cir. 1999)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 169 F.3d 988 (5th Cir. 1999) March 30, 1999
Following its investigation, the NTSB issued a "Brief of Accident," as required by federal law.1 Although the report did not mention Shanks explicitly, it concluded that the probable cause of the accident was the fact that " [t]he airplane was improperly maintained."2 Shanks alleges that Allied conspired to manipulate the NTSB investigation and contributed to an accident report that was false and misleading.3 He also claims that Allied owed him a duty to rectify errors in the NTSB's report.4 According to Shanks, the NTSB's false accident report led to his indictment on eight federal felony counts. Shanks also claims that the Federal Aviation Administration, prompted by the NTSB report, forced him to agree not to reapply for an airman mechanic's license for one year.
In Quirk v. Mustang Engineering, Inc., 143 F.3d 973 (5th Cir. 1998), we asserted jurisdiction over an immunity claim almost identical to the one before us today. The defendant in Quirk moved for summary judgment on the ground that he was absolutely immune from suit for statements made during a quasi-judicial proceeding. The district court denied his motion, and the defendant appealed. We heard the appeal, finding that " [w]e have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals denying summary judgment based on absolute immunity." Id. at 975.
The Quirk panel did not, however, specifically address whether an order denying such an immunity is properly deemed "final" under § 1291 and the collateral order doctrine. Nonetheless, an independent application of our precedent in that area compels the same result. " [O]rders denying certain immunities are strong candidates for prompt appeal under § 1291." Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 871, 114 S. Ct. 1992, 1998, 128 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1994). An immunity from suit is not only a means of prevailing on the merits, but an "entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2815, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1985). This entitlement is "effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Swint, 514 U.S. at 42, 115 S. Ct. at 1208 (emphasis omitted). In the parlance of the collateral order doctrine, a claim of immunity from suit is "effectively unreviewable" once the defendant is forced to go to trial, because he or she is permanently deprived of the right to avoid the burdens of litigation. Id. For this reason, we have heard appeals from interlocutory orders denying a defendant's assertion of immunity from suit. See, e.g., Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 804 (5th Cir. 1996); Sorey v. Kellett, 849 F.2d 960, 962 (5th Cir. 1988); Williams v. Collins, 728 F.2d 721, 726 (5th Cir. 1984).
We must, however, "view claims of a 'right not to be tried' with skepticism, if not a jaundiced eye." Digital Equipment, 511 U.S. at 873, 114 S. Ct. at 1999. As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, "virtually every right that could be enforced appropriately by pretrial dismissal might loosely be described as conferring a 'right not to stand trial.' " Id. at 873, 114 S. Ct. at 1998. Consequently, when we assess whether interlocutory review is appropriate, " [t]he critical question ... is whether 'the essence' of the claimed right is a right not to stand trial," Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 524, 108 S. Ct. 1945, 1950, 100 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1988). Thus our jurisdiction to review the order now appealed turns on whether Allied's claim of absolute immunity "provides a true immunity from suit and not a simple defense to liability." Sorey, 849 F.2d at 962; see also Swint, 514 U.S. at 43, 115 S. Ct. at 1208 (denying jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine where defendant's claim was based on a "mere defense to liability" and not an "immunity from suit").5
Allied bases its immunity claim on the rule of Texas law that communications made during the course of judicial, quasi-judicial, or legislative proceedings are "absolutely privileged." Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins., 140 Tex. 105, 166 S.W.2d 909, 912 (1942). Although appellate jurisdiction under § 1291 is a matter of federal law, we look to state law to determine whether the basis of Allied's claim is properly characterized as an immunity from suit or merely a defense to liability. See Tamez v. City of San Marcos, 62 F.3d 123, 125 (5th Cir. 1995) (assessing whether a defendant may appeal an interlocutory order denying a motion for summary judgment based on state law qualified immunity). According to the Texas Supreme Court, the absolute privilege claimed by Allied "is more properly thought of as an immunity." Hurlbut v. Gulf Atl. Life Ins. Co., 749 S.W.2d 762, 768 (Tex.1987). Communications subject to this privilege simply "cannot constitute the basis of a civil action." Reagan, 166 S.W.2d at 912. Where the privilege arises, "no action in damages ... will lie." Id. One Texas court has held, in near perfect response to the jurisdictional inquiry now before us, that this "absolute privilege is not a defense. Rather, absolutely privileged communications are not actionable." CEDA Corp. v. City of Houston, 817 S.W.2d 846, 849 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (citations omitted). Such communications are "absolutely immune from civil liability." Attaya v. Shoukfeh, 962 S.W.2d 237, 240 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1998, writ denied).
Allied contends that the district court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(c). We review a district court's denial of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Smith v. Brenoettsy, 158 F.3d 908, 911 (5th Cir. 1998). Where, as here, a defendant moves for summary judgment based on a defense for which he or she would have the burden at trial, he or she must "establish each element of that defense as a matter of law." Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., Inc. v. M/V Anax, 40 F.3d 741, 744 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)).
* We first address whether a defendant is entitled to absolute immunity for communications made in connection with accident investigations by the NTSB. Where, as here, a federal court exercises jurisdiction over state law causes of action based on diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, we must apply state substantive law. See Rogers v. Corrosion Prods., Inc., 42 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938)). To determine state substantive law, we look to final decisions of the state's highest court. See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Transportation Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 985, 988 (5th Cir. 1992). "When there is no ruling by the state's highest court, it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can, what the highest court of the state would decide." Id.
Although the Texas Supreme Court has never specifically decided whether communications during NTSB investigations are immune from suit, it has provided strong guidance to predict how it would rule on this particular issue. The immunity asserted by Allied "attaches only to a limited and select number of situations which involve the administration of the functions of the branches of government, such as statements made during legislative and judicial proceedings." Hurlbut, 749 S.W.2d at 768. This absolute immunity applies to quasi-judicial proceedings as well. See Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins., 140 Tex. 105, 166 S.W.2d 909, 912 (1942); see also Matta v. May, 118 F.3d 410, 415 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that absolute immunity under Texas law "applies to quasi-judicial proceedings before governmental agencies"). In Reagan v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., the Texas Supreme Court noted that an agency proceeding may be deemed quasi-judicial for immunity purposes where a statute confers upon the agency "the power to conduct investigations and hearings." Reagan, 166 S.W.2d at 913 (citing Aransas Harbor Terminal Ry. Co. v. Taber, 235 S.W. 841 (Tex.Com.App.1921)). During accident investigations, the NTSB unquestionably possesses these powers. See 49 U.S.C. § 1113(a) (power to conduct hearings); 49 U.S.C. § 1131(a) (1) (power to conduct investigations).
Village of Bayou Vista v. Glaskox, 899 S.W.2d 826, 829 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no writ) (quoting Parker v. Holbrook, 647 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.)); see also Town of South Padre Island v. Jacobs, 736 S.W.2d 134, 144 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1986, writ denied). NTSB investigations satisfy at least the first, second, and fifth of these criteria. The NTSB may ascertain facts and decide. See 49 U.S.C. § 1131(a) (empowering the NTSB to "establish the facts, circumstances, and cause or probable cause" of aircraft accidents). This power necessarily implies a power to exercise judgment and discretion. The NTSB may also "conduct hearings ..., administer oaths, and require, by subpoena or otherwise, necessary witnesses and evidence." 49 U.S.C. § 1113(a) (1).
Texas courts have also denied absolute immunity where the challenged communications are made to agencies that issue merely recommendations or preliminary findings. One case concerned a regional council of county governments charged with making recommendations to federal agencies on requests for health services grants. See Parker, 647 S.W.2d at 696. The court of appeals concluded that the council was not quasi-judicial, because its decisions were "preliminary in nature," and because the council was not "the final arbiter." Id. It is true that during an accident investigation, the NTSB is not the "final arbiter" of any entity's legal rights. However, its findings are more than mere recommendations. The NTSB must "establish the facts, circumstances, and cause or probable cause" of aircraft accidents. 49 U.S.C. § 1131(a) (1). Once it does so, its findings need not be approved or ratified by another agency. The NTSB has the final word.
Furthermore, it would be nonsensical to characterize the NTSB's investigation as "preliminary" to litigation over an aircraft accident, because by federal statute, no part of an NTSB report may be "used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report." 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b). Although the NTSB's conclusions are not relevant to any party's legal rights, Congress has deemed the NTSB's findings sufficiently important that its investigations have "priority over any investigation by another department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government." 49 U.S.C. § 1131(a) (2). Therefore, we find inapposite Texas cases suggesting that absolute immunity does not apply to government agencies whose conclusions are merely preliminary.
Shanks's argument fails for several reasons. First, Allied never signed the Statement of Party Representatives or any other document containing such language. In fact, the provision requiring parties to sign the Statement of Party Representatives was not added to the NTSB regulations until 1997, four years after the NTSB's initial investigation into this matter had concluded. See 62 Fed.Reg. 3806, 3808 (1997) (adding current language in 49 C.F.R. § 831.11(b)). Second, even if the statement binds Allied nonetheless, its language does not cover the kind of substantive immunity asserted by Allied in this case. Its terms merely prohibit parties from asserting a privilege "with respect to information or documents obtained" during NTSB investigations. Thus the statement focuses on evidentiary matters, that is, the disclosure of "information or documents." The Tenth Circuit has described it as a "discovery waiver [ ]," by which parties "g [i]ve up discovery privileges potentially assertable in a tort liability case." Thomas Brooks Chartered v. Burnett, 920 F.2d 634, 647 (10th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). The NTSB has characterized its policy as "requir [ing] parties to waive any objection to civil discovery about their investigatory role in the event litigation commences." Id. at 637.
When the district court denies a defendant's immunity-based summary judgment motion because of disputed factual issues, we do not have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2156, 132 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1995) (denying appellate jurisdiction because the district court found that genuine issues of fact precluded granting summary judgment for defendants based on qualified immunity); Petta v. Rivera, 143 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 1998) (same). In the present case, the district court denied Allied's motion as a matter of law
Shanks makes two additional arguments that are not properly before us. First, Shanks's brief devotes four sentences to the argument that federal law preempts the state law immunities on which Allied relies. This claim was raised for the first time on appeal, and we shall not address it. See Quenzer v. United States (In re Quenzer), 19 F.3d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1993) ("Typically, we will not consider on appeal matters not presented to the trial court.")
Second, Shanks contends that Allied committed actionable conduct outside the scope of the NTSB investigation, for which the immunity claimed by Allied would not apply. We decline to examine these claims, because the district court never addressed whether any actionable conduct took place outside of the NTSB investigation. "It is the general rule that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below." Americans Disabled for Accessible Pub. Transp. v. Skinner, 881 F.2d 1184, 1197 (3d. Cir. 1989) (en banc); see also Baker v. Bell, 630 F.2d 1046, 1055 (5th Cir. 1980) ("Generally this court will not reach the merits of an issue not considered by the district court."). More significantly, we lack jurisdiction over such claims, because there is no appealable order as to alleged conduct outside of the NTSB investigation. The decision now being appealed rejected Allied's argument "that its communications with the NTSB in connection with the accident investigation" are immune from suit. As to any claims that are not based on "communications with the NTSB in connection with the accident investigation," there is no appealable order. Without an appealable order, we cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 724 F.2d 1157, 1159 (5th Cir. 1984) (holding that an appealable order is "a prerequisite for an appeal to this court").
When making an "Erie-guess" as to how a state's high court would decide an issue, it is proper to look to the decisions of lower state courts. See Hill v. London, Stetelman, & Kirkwood, Inc., 906 F.2d 204, 207 (5th Cir. 1990)
The Texas Supreme Court has intimated that absolute immunity applies only to defamation actions. See Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 771 (Tex.1994) (recognizing that in James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 918 (Tex.1982), the high court "declined to expand the privilege beyond libel and slander"). It clarified, however, that where a cause of action is "virtually indistinguishable" from a defamation claim, and where the damages sought "are basically defamation damages," absolute immunity still applies. See Bird, 868 S.W.2d at 771-72. It noted that a plaintiff should not be able to circumvent the policy behind absolute immunity merely by pleading creatively. See id. at 772 (citing Doe v. Blake, 809 F. Supp. 1020, 1028 (D. Conn. 1992)). Thus the Texas Supreme Court applied absolute immunity to a negligence action based on statements during judicial proceedings. See Bird, 868 S.W.2d at 771-72.