Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser

490 U.S. 495 (1989)

What's Going On?

Writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's dismissal of Petitioner's appeal on the ground that the orders of the district court were interlocutory in nature and therefore not appealable in a case brought by passengers of Petitioner's cruise ship who suffered injuries when the ship was hijacked.

Who's Who?

Petitioner     :

Lauro Lines s.r.l. – (original defendant) cruise line, owner of the cruise ship, Achille Lauro.

Respondents :

Chasser, et al – (original plaintiff) passengers or representatives of passengers who were aboard Petitioner's cruise ship when it was hijacked.

Facts:

Respondents are passengers or representatives of passengers who were aboard the Petitioner's cruise ship, Achille Lauro, when it was hijacked. Respondents filed suit in federal district court against Petitioner, the shipowner, in order to recover damages for injuries resulting from the hijacking, and for the wrongful death of a passenger. Petitioner moved before trial to dismiss the actions, relying on a forum selection clause printed on each passenger ticket that designated Naples, Italy as the sole location for any suit arising in connection with the contract. The district court held that the ticket did not provide Respondents with reasonable notice that they were waiving the right to sue in a domestic forum and denied Petitioner's motions to dismiss. Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of its motion to dismiss. The appellate court dismissed Petitioner's appeal on the ground that the district court's orders were interlocutory and not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.The appellate court held that the orders did not fall within the collateral final order doctrine. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue:

Is an interlocutory order of a federal district court denying a defendant's motion to dismiss a damages action on the basis of a contractual forum-selection clause immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a collateral final order?

Decision:

No. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, a party may only appeal to the federal appellate courts from final decisions of the federal district courts. A final judgment is generally a decision by the district court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. The order of the district court, denying a motion to dismiss a civil action based on the terms of a contractual forum-selection clause, is not a decision on the merits that ends litigation. Instead, such a judgment ensures that litigation will continue in the district court. Because the judgment of the district court was not a final judgment, it may only be appealable under § 1291 if it falls within the collateral order doctrine. The collateral order doctrine is an exception to the final judgment rule. It applies to a small class of prejudgment orders that finally determine claims of right that are separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action. Such claims are too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause to require deferral of appellate consideration until the whole case is adjudicated. An order must meet three conditions in order to fall within the exception. It 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. In this case, it is only necessary to consider the third condition. An order is effectively unreviewable only if it involves an asserted right which must be vindicated before trial. Petitioner argues that its forum-selection clause created a right to trial before a tribunal in Italy, and a right not to be sued elsewhere. Petitioner also argues that this right cannot be effectively vindicated by a post-trial appeal. Petitioner's claim that it may only be sued in Naples is adequately vindicable after a final judgment. Therefore, Petitioner's claim does not fall within the third prong of the collateral order doctrine. Affirmed.

Basic 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.

Concurrence:

The right not to be sued elsewhere than in Naples is adequately vindicable by reversal of a judgment obtained in violation of that right because the law does not deem the right important enough to be enough to be vindicated by an injunction against its violation, obtained through interlocutory appeal. While the right not to be sued elsewhere than in Naples is positively destroyed by permitting the trial to occur and reversing its outcome, that is sufficient vindication because the right is not sufficiently important to overcome the policies militating against interlocutory appeals.

Terms:

28 U.S.C. § 1291

Statute embodying the “Final-Judgment Rule,” under which a party may only appeal to the federal appellate courts from final decisions of the federal district courts.

Collateral order doctrine :

Doctrine under which an appeal is allowed from an interlocutory order that conclusively determines a disputed issue where the issue is completely separate from the merits of the action and is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us