Opinion ID: 675128
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Separability Doctrine

Text: 16 The Airbus Defendants contend that the district court's ruling on their status under the FSIA is a separable order reviewable apart from the decision to remand. They urge that Mobil does not control here because--unlike the defendant in Mobil--the Airbus Defendants do not seek review of the district court's order of remand; rather, they seek review of the FSIA order itself. Additionally, note the Airbus Defendants, the defendant in Mobil did not claim immunity and likely could not have, given the commercial activity exception, 18 whereas the Airbus Defendants vigorously assert their entitlement to immunity--which typically gives rise to an order that is immediately appealable under the Cohen collateral order doctrine. Although the Airbus Defendants make an appealing argument, we must conclude that the FSIA order is not separable and hence not reviewable on appeal. 17 The notion that certain orders may be reviewed on appeal if such orders are separable from the order of remand originated with the Supreme Court's decision in City of Waco v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 19 In City of Waco, Curtis Boggs filed suit in Texas state court against the city of Waco, Texas, and its contractor, Combs & Glade, for damages Boggs allegedly caused by a street obstruction. 20 The city then brought United States Fidelity Company & Guaranty Company (Fidelity), surety on a bond of Combs & Glade, into the suit by way of a cross-action, alleging that Fidelity was liable under the bond to pay whatever amount might be adjudged due by the City by reason of the fault [Combs & Glade]. 21 Fidelity removed the case to federal court, and Boggs moved for a variety of relief, including that the entire case be remanded or that the case against Fidelity be dismissed and the remainder of the case remanded. 22 18 In a single order, the district court denied Boggs' motion to remand the entire case but granted the motion to dismiss the cross-action, finding that as to Boggs' cause of action the Fidelity Company was an unnecessary and improper party. 23 Because this dismissal eliminated diversity jurisdiction, the court remanded the remainder of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 19 The Supreme Court eventually determined that the remand order did not preclude appellate review of the dismissal order, stating: 20 True, no appeal lies from the order of remand; in logic and in fact the decree of dismissal preceded that of remand and was made by the District Court while it had control of the cause. Indisputably, this order is the subject of an appeal; and, if not reversed or set aside, is conclusive upon the [city of Waco]. 21 The Court also explained that although a reversal cannot affect the order of remand, ... it will at least, if the dismissal of the [city's] complaint was erroneous, remit the entire controversy, with the Fidelity Company as a party, to the state court for such further proceedings as may be in accordance with law. 25 22 In determining whether an order is separable and thus can be afforded appellate review under City of Waco, we have focused on language in the Court's opinion suggesting that an order is separable from an order of remand if it precedes that of remand in logic and in fact and is conclusive, i.e., it will have the preclusive effect of being functionally unreviewable in the state court. 26 Although the district court's FSIA order in the instant case may have preceded the court's order of remand in logic and in fact, we cannot say that it was conclusive. In light of the district court's ultimate conclusion that the entire case had to be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the district court's determination that the FSIA is inapplicable to the Airbus Defendants can be deemed a jurisdictional finding under the facts of this case and, as such, can be reviewed by the state court upon remand. 27 Under City of Waco and the jurisprudence of this circuit, the district court's FSIA order is therefore not conclusive upon the Airbus Defendants so as to be separable and hence reviewable by this court.