Exception to the Final Judgment Rule

United States Supreme Court laid out the law of interlocutory appeals for United
States federal courts.

Case: Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser (1989, U.S.) [p. 636-642]

Facts: Plaintiff cruise passengers had filed a lawsuit in a United States

district court against the defendant cruise line for injuries sustained when an
Italian cruise ships - the Achille Lauro - was hijacked by terrorists. The cruise
ticket included a forum selection clause which required that lawsuits against the
cruise line be brought in Naples, Italy.

The cruise line filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, based
on the forum selection clause. The district court denied the motion, and the
cruise line sought an interlocutory appeal of this motion. The appellate court
denied the motion based on the final judgment rule, 28 U.S.C. 1291, asserting that
the cruise line would have to wait until the case was decided before filing any
appeals. This ruling was immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The defendants argued that this fell under the judge-made Collateral Order
Doctrine, which allows immediate appeals of rulings that are collateral to the
merits of the case, would determine it conclusively, and would not be effectively
reviewable unless an immediate appeal were allowed.

Issue: The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a party can bring an
interlocutory appeal against dismissal of a motion for lack of personal
jurisdiction based on the existence of a forum selection clause.

Holding: forum-selection clause is not immediately appealable.

Reasoning: The Court (Justice Brennan) held that the Collateral Order Doctrine
does not apply to a forum selection clause. This was not a case where the
defendant was claiming a right not to be tried at all, like a sovereign immunity
case, which would be disposed of before the defendant was even subject to the
discovery process. Instead, the defendant was acknowledging that it could be sued,
but merely disputing the appropriate forum for the suit.

Justice Scalia, concurring, wrote to express his opinion that the reason an
interlocutory appeal would not stand in this case was that "the law does not deem
the right important enough to be vindicated" by an interlocutory appeal.
The policies in support of final judgment rule are not outweighed.

RULE: In order for an interlocutory order to be appealable in accordance with the

collateral order doctrine, the order must (1) conclusively determine the disputed
question; (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of
the action; and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

Notes
• Collateral order doctrine - that the order in question conclusively determined
the issue in question, resolve an important issue completely separate from merits
of the action (which here was not), and be effectively unreviewable
• Cruise line defense - forum selection clause
§ District court says no, we're going to court in NY
§ Def appeal, but in this case, supreme court says its not a final order,
nor will we review it under he collateral order doctrine