Opinion ID: 3039151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: UPS appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which grants us jurisdiction over “[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts . . . granting . . . injunctions . . . , except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” UPS’s appeal of the district court’s order granting a permanent injunction falls squarely within the scope of § 1292(a)(1). We 3 The district court’s findings of fact on this and other matters are reviewed in greater detail later, as they become pertinent. BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 17483 therefore have jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) to review the district court’s injunctive order. Section 1292(a)(1) also grants us jurisdiction to review the legal and factual decisions made by the district court that underlie its injunctive order where — as here — those issues “are inextricably bound up with the injunction.” See Idaho Watershed Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815, 824 (9th Cir. 2002); TransWorld Airlines, Inc. v. Am. Coupon Exch., Inc., 913 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1990); Marathon Oil Co. v. United States, 807 F.2d 759, 764 (9th Cir. 1986). Such review is particularly appropriate in cases like the present one, in which the appeal is taken from a permanent, rather than preliminary, injunction and “[t]he district court has completed its consideration of the liability issue, retaining jurisdiction only for an accounting of damages.” See Marathon, 807 F.2d at 764. Because the district court’s legal authority to grant the injunction stemmed from its holding that UPS violated the ADA and the California laws, those holdings are “inextricably bound up” with its injunction. We therefore have jurisdiction to review the district court’s liability determinations under § 1292(a)(1). Similarly, § 1292(a)(1) provides us with jurisdiction to review the denial of UPS’s motion on partial findings as well the denial of its motion for class decertification; like the liability determinations, these motions, too, are “inextricably bound up” with the injunction.4 See Paige v. California, 102 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that when a class certification order and an injunction granting class-wide relief are appealed, courts have jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) over 4 Bates contends that we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of the motion for judgment on partial findings because UPS did not seek certification of the issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), but his argument is mistaken. When we have jurisdiction pursuant to § 1292(a), litigants need not also meet the requirements of § 1292(b). See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 1997); TransWorld Airlines, 913 F.2d at 680. 17484 BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE the class certification order because it is “inextricably bound up” with the injunction); Immigrant Assistance Project of L.A. County Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 869 (9th Cir. 2002).5