Opinion ID: 781107
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Necessary for Meaningful Review

Text: 22 Although the district court's decision not to abstain under Younger is not inextricably intertwined with its order granting the preliminary injunction, we may still have jurisdiction over the order denying the State's motion to dismiss under Younger if review of this order is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the preliminary injunction. We conclude that it is. 23 We have held that we have jurisdiction to review, on interlocutory appeal, a denial of a motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity. See Thomas v. Nakatani, 309 F.3d 1203, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2002); In re Republic of the Philippines, 309 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir.2002). We review the immunity issue on interlocutory appeal because the benefit of the immunity is lost or severely eroded once the suit is allowed to proceed past the motion stage of the litigation. Thomas, 309 F.3d at 1207-08. 24 Similarly, the Second Circuit has held that it can review, on interlocutory appeal, the basis for the district court's subject matter jurisdiction over a Bivens claim because it is `necessary to ensure meaningful review of' the district court's order denying qualified immunity on that claim. Merritt, 187 F.3d at 269; see also Timpanogos Tribe, 286 F.3d at 1201 (same). The court reasoned that [t]he existence of subject matter jurisdiction goes to the very power of the district court to issue the rulings [then] under consideration. Merritt, 187 F.3d at 269 (citation omitted); see also Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1048-49 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that review of a partial summary judgment order regarding general liability for compensatory damages that was granted in an underlying class action suit was necessary to ensure meaningful review of compensatory damages awards granted to two of the class members in suits brought by them individually), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 871, 154 L.Ed.2d 775 (2003). 25 Resolution of subject matter jurisdiction and of qualified immunity is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the district court's interlocutory rulings because if appellate courts lack jurisdiction, they cannot review the merits of these properly appealed rulings. In contrast, in cases in which Younger applies, the federal courts have jurisdiction over the parties' claims; Younger abstention concerns whether they should exercise that jurisdiction. See Woodfeathers, Inc. v. Washington County, 180 F.3d 1017, 1020 (9th Cir.1999) ( ` Younger is an exception to the usual rule that federal courts should exercise the jurisdiction conferred on them by statute.' (quoting Gartrell Constr. Inc. v. Aubry, 940 F.2d 437, 441 (9th Cir.1991))). 26 Like subject matter jurisdiction and qualified immunity, however, resolution of the Younger abstention issue is critical because, if the district court is required to abstain under Younger and dismiss the suit, then it has no authority to rule on a party's motion for a preliminary injunction. It therefore is necessary to review a district court's decision to abstain under Younger on interlocutory appeal to ensure meaningful review of the court's grant of a preliminary injunction. 27 We therefore hold that in cases such as this, in which a district court denies a motion to dismiss on the basis of Younger abstention and then grants injunctive relief that potentially interferes with ongoing state proceedings, review of the court's Younger abstention decision is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the grant of the preliminary injunction.