Longobardo v. Avco Corp., No G062374 (D4d3 Jul. 11, 2023).
An uncodified federal law called GARA puts an 18-year statute of repose on personal injury claims involving a general aviation aircraft from the date of the aircraft’s delivery. Federal and state courts are divided over whether an order denying summary judgment based on the repose is immediately appealable under the federal collateral order doctrine or similar state-law rules. The question in this appeal is whether a superior court’s denial of a SJ under GARA’s repose is an appealable order under California state law.
It isn’t. California recognizes a version of the collateral order doctrine. But it applies only when an interlocutory order directs payment of money or performance of an act. That is, when an order looks an awful lot like a preliminary injunction. One Court of Appeal case from 2009 suggests that this requirement is archaic, but other courts have continued to apply it, and the court does so here.
Notably, the federal collateral doctrine is somewhat broader than that. For good reason. Writ practice in California is more generous than federal mandamus practice under the all writs act. Indeed, the availability of extraordinary writs acts, in many ways, as the kind of safety valve that the collateral order doctrine provides in federal cases. And notably, several kinds of orders—including denials of summary judgment—are statutorily reviewable by extraordinary writ. See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(m)(1). So there’s no good reason to broaden the collateral order doctrine to include denials of SJ based on GARA’s repose period.
Appeal dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment