Reported / Citable
Background
Relator Alex Doe alleges that Planned Parenthood Federation of America devised an in-court and out-of-court scheme that allowed three terminated regional affiliates to continue submitting Medicaid claims. Doe brought implied-false-certification and conspiracy claims under the federal False Claims Act and Texas and Louisiana analogues.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that attorney immunity did not protect the Federation and denied it summary judgment on those claims. The Federation took an interlocutory appeal under the collateral-order doctrine. A Fifth Circuit panel found jurisdiction and held that the Federation was entitled to immunity for its attorneys’ acts, but the court granted rehearing en banc.
The Court’s Holding
The en banc Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal and dismissed it. Texas law did not establish with sufficient clarity that attorney immunity is a true immunity from suit rather than an affirmative defense to liability. Louisiana’s doctrine, which limits an attorney’s duties to an adversary, likewise does not guarantee freedom from trial.
Federal common law supplied no jurisdictional basis either. Even if attorney immunity could protect the Federation against claims based on its attorneys’ conduct—a merits question the court expressly did not decide—the Federation would still face the same claims insofar as they rested on its own conduct. Deciding the immunity question therefore would not conclusively resolve a separable issue in a way that meaningfully advanced the litigation. Judge Andrew S. Oldham concurred in the judgment only.
Key Takeaways
- The collateral-order doctrine did not permit immediate review of the district court’s rejection of the Federation’s attorney-immunity defense.
- The court declined to decide whether attorney immunity actually protects the Federation from liability for conduct attributed to its attorneys.
- The en banc court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; it did not order a remand.
Why It Matters
The decision narrows the circumstances in which a party may immediately appeal the denial of an attorney-immunity defense. Characterizing a doctrine as “immunity” is insufficient when governing law treats it as a defense to liability rather than an entitlement to avoid suit.
The ruling also emphasizes that collateral-order review is unavailable when resolving the asserted immunity would leave intertwined claims based on the defendant’s own conduct for trial.