Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendantjurisdictionstatuteappeal
tortdefendantjurisdictionstatuteappealmotioncommon law

Related Cases

J.E.F.M. v. Holder
View Case »
Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.
View Case »
Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA
View Case »
Zixiang Li v. Kerry
View Case »
Luu-Le v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Strange v. Islamic Republic of Iran

Facts

The case arose after a helicopter crash in Afghanistan killed thirty U.S. servicemembers, including Navy Petty Officers John Douangdara and Michael Strange. Their parents filed a lawsuit against various foreign defendants, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, alleging violations of federal anti-terrorism statutes and racketeering. The district court initially certified an order for interlocutory appeal, but the parents failed to file a timely petition for permission to appeal. After the district court recertified its order, the parents filed a petition within ten days, leading to the jurisdictional question at hand.

On August 6, 2011, a helicopter carrying thirty United States servicemembers was shot down by insurgents in Afghanistan, leaving no survivors. Navy Petty Officers First Class John Douangdara and Michael Strange and Army Staff Sergeant Patrick Hamburger were among the Americans killed. Nearly three years later, their parents and stepparents (collectively, Parents) brought this suit against those individuals, governments and state entities [***3] (collectively, Foreign Defendants) the Parents hold responsible. Specifically, the Parents allege that the Foreign Defendants engaged in racketeering, see 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., violated multiple federal anti-terrorism statutes, see id. 2333, 2339, 2339A, and committed numerous common law torts in connection with the helicopter attack.

Issue

Did the district court's recertification of its order allow the parents to file a petition for permission to appeal after the original deadline had passed?

Did the district court's recertification of its order allow the parents to file a petition for permission to appeal after the original deadline had passed?

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), a petition for permission to appeal must be filed within ten days of the entry of the certified order, and this deadline is jurisdictional.

Interlocutory review is an exception to the final judgment rule and our jurisdiction of such appeals is therefore limited. Before an aggrieved litigant can invoke our interlocutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), the district court must certify its order for appeal. We may then, [*1193] [**149] in our discretion, permit an appeal only if the litigant files a petition 'within ten days after [***2] the entry of the [certified] order.' Id. We have long recognized that section 1292(b)'s filing period is jurisdictional and thus the failure to file timely the required petition precludes us from exercising jurisdiction of the appeal.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the district court's recertification of its order could restart the jurisdictional clock for filing a petition for permission to appeal. It concluded that the jurisdictional nature of the ten-day filing period could not be circumvented by recertification, and thus the parents' late filing deprived the court of jurisdiction over the appeal.

Here, the district court certified an order for interlocutory appeal but no petition was filed by section 1292(b)'s deadline. The district court thereafter granted a motion to recertify its order and the litigants filed both a petition for permission to appeal and a notice of appeal within ten days after recertification. We conclude in this consolidated opinion that a district court cannot restart the jurisdictional clock in this manner. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, we dismiss the petition and related appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming that the parents did not meet the filing deadline required by 28 U.S.C. 1292(b).

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming that the parents did not meet the filing deadline required by 28 U.S.C. 1292(b).

Who won?

The Islamic Republic of Iran prevailed in the case because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the parents' failure to file a timely petition.

The Islamic Republic of Iran prevailed in the case because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the parents' failure to file a timely petition.

You must be