Opinion ID: 790924
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Present Appeals and Cross-Appeals

Text: 39 In response to a request by the Port Authority, the district court entered an order certifying its decision for an immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), finding that its ruling as to [t]he scope of federal jurisdiction conferred by ATSSSA involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal also may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, 270 F.Supp.2d at 381. The court stated: This is an unusual case. If my order is incorrect, and preemption and the scope of federal jurisdiction are more extensive or more limited than I have held, the legitimacy of further proceedings in the New York Supreme Court and in this court will be in doubt. Id. 40 The court noted, however, that an appeal would not be available in a case after it had been sent back to state court, see id. (certifications are available only with respect to cases remaining in this court), and the court therefore stayed the actual return of the to-be-remanded cases to state court pending appeal. Accordingly, the removed cases (to the extent that they have not since been dismissed or withdrawn) remain pending in the district court. 41 In accordance with § 1292(b), the City and the Port Authority moved in this Court for permission to appeal so much of the district court's decision as granted remands, and some of the plaintiffs whose remand motions had been denied moved for leave to appeal those denials. A motions panel of this Court unconditionally granted the moving plaintiffs' application for permission to appeal the denial of their remand motions; the panel provisionally granted defendants' motions for permission to appeal the ordered remands, leav[ing] to the merits panel ... the question of whether these remand orders are appealable at all. In re WTC Disaster Site, Nos. 03-8023, etc. (2d Cir. Nov. 12, 2003). 42 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that, although we disagree with so much of the district court's decision as ordered remands to state court, that portion of the decision is unreviewable, and we thus lack jurisdiction over defendants' appeals. However, the district court, having stayed the remands, is free to revisit that portion of its decision. As to the cross-appeals, of which we unquestionably have jurisdiction, we affirm so much of the district court's order as denied remands. 43