Opinion ID: 2977481
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: In this interlocutory appeal, which is limited to the Council Members’ assertions of legislative immunity, the Council Members contend that the district court erred in ruling that additional information is necessary to determine whether the plaintiffs’ claims against the Council Members in their individual capacities are barred by state and federal legislative immunity. Ordinarily, appellate courts do not have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, like the Council Members’ appeal of the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss, because such decisions are not final judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 434 F.3d -5- No. 08-5213 Wayne Jaggers, et al. v. City of Alexandria, et al. 432, 434 (6th Cir. 2006) (stating the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(c) is ordinarily considered non-final, and, therefore, not immediately appealable to this Court). The parties assert that we have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine, which permits interlocutory appellate review of a narrow class of non-final orders that “finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require the appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). Under the collateral-order doctrine, however, an “order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint against a[n] . . . official when the dismissal motion is based on the official’s assertion of absolute or qualified immunity is immediately reviewable to the extent that the denial turns on issues of law.” State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 82 (2d. Cir. 2007). Conversely, appellate courts will not review the district court’s decision “if a factual determination is a necessary predicate to the resolution of whether . . . [absolute] immunity is a bar” to suit. Id. Here, the district court determined that further discovery is necessary to determine whether the Council Members are entitled to legislative immunity. We agree. As such, for the reasons set forth below, the collateral-order doctrine does not confer appellate jurisdiction on this Court.