Background
Relator Alex Doe alleged that Planned Parenthood Federation of America orchestrated an in-court and out-of-court scheme enabling three terminated regional affiliates to continue submitting Medicaid claims. Doe asserted implied-false-certification and conspiracy claims under the federal False Claims Act and analogous Texas and Louisiana statutes.
The district court held that the Federation was not entitled to attorney immunity and denied it summary judgment on those claims. A Fifth Circuit panel accepted jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine and reversed, concluding that the Federation was entitled to immunity for its attorneys’ acts. The Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc.
The Court’s Holding
The en banc court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the Federation’s interlocutory appeal and dismissed it. An order denying immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine only when the asserted protection is a true immunity from suit, rather than merely a defense to liability, and when resolving it would conclusively determine a separable issue.
Texas law did not supply a sufficiently clear right not to stand trial because later Texas Supreme Court decisions had unsettled the Fifth Circuit’s earlier prediction that Texas attorney immunity constituted true immunity from suit. Louisiana attorney immunity instead limits an attorney’s tort duties to an adversary and therefore operates as a defense to liability. Federal common law also did not support jurisdiction because the Federation would still face trial based on its own alleged conduct even if immunity applied to conduct by its attorneys, and deciding the issue would not meaningfully advance the litigation by conclusively resolving a separable question.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit did not decide whether attorney immunity ultimately protects the Federation from liability.
- Neither Texas nor Louisiana attorney-immunity law provided a sufficiently clear immunity from suit to support immediate appellate review.
- Because the Federation would remain in the litigation based on its own alleged actions, deciding whether its attorneys’ conduct was protected would not conclusively resolve a separable issue.
Why It Matters
The decision limits immediate appeals from orders rejecting attorney-immunity defenses when state law treats the doctrine as a defense to liability or does not clearly establish a right to avoid trial. The en banc court’s jurisdictional ruling leaves the merits of the Federation’s immunity defense unresolved and permits the False Claims Act litigation to continue in the district court.