Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.
485 U.S. 271 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court's order denying a motion to stay or dismiss an action due to a concurrent state court proceeding is not a final decision and thus is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Furthermore, such an order is not appealable as an interlocutory order denying an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), as the antiquated Enelow-Ettelson doctrine is hereby overturned.
Facts:
- Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation and Mayacamas Corporation entered into a contract for Mayacamas to purchase an aircraft from Gulfstream.
- Mayacamas later refused to make payments on the contract.
- Mayacamas claimed that Gulfstream had frustrated the purpose of the contract by increasing the production and availability of its aircraft, which Mayacamas had intended to resell at a profit based on high demand.
- Gulfstream filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Mayacamas in the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia.
- Approximately one month later, Mayacamas filed a separate diversity action against Gulfstream in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging breach of the same contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Gulfstream sued Mayacamas in the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia (a state trial court).
- Mayacamas subsequently filed a diversity action against Gulfstream in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- In the federal action, Gulfstream moved to stay or dismiss the case based on the pending Georgia state court litigation under the Colorado River doctrine.
- The U.S. District Court denied Gulfstream's motion.
- Gulfstream (appellant) appealed the District Court's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Mayacamas as the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue of appealability.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a district court order denying a motion to stay or dismiss an action due to a similar pending state court action immediately appealable under either the collateral order doctrine of § 1291 or as an injunction under § 1292(a)(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. A district court order denying a motion to stay or dismiss an action because of a pending state court case is not immediately appealable. First, such an order is not a 'final decision' appealable under § 1291 because it fails the collateral order doctrine's 'conclusiveness' prong. Unlike an order granting a stay, which effectively ends the federal litigation, an order denying a stay is 'inherently tentative.' The district court may revisit its decision based on future developments in the parallel state proceeding, so the decision is not the 'final word on the subject.' Second, the order is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1) as a denial of an injunction. To reach this conclusion, the Court explicitly overturns the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, which fictionally treated stays in 'legal' actions based on 'equitable' defenses as appealable injunctions. The Court found this doctrine to be unsound, unworkable, and arbitrary, as it was based on an outmoded distinction between law and equity that has no relevance in modern federal practice. Finally, the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is not warranted because the district court's decision was not a clear abuse of discretion or a usurpation of power.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, I agree with the judgment that the order is not immediately appealable. However, the reasoning that the order is 'inherently tentative' is an oversimplification. A better reason for denying appealability under the collateral order doctrine is that the requested relief—a stay of proceedings—will be nearly as effective if granted at a later date. The harm caused by allowing the federal case to proceed in the interim is not severe or irreparable. Therefore, the core requirement of the collateral order doctrine—that the right be effectively lost if not immediately reviewed—is not met. This approach provides a more solid limiting principle for the 'small class' of Cohen appeals.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the availability of interlocutory appeals and promotes judicial efficiency by reinforcing the final-judgment rule. The Court's primary impact was its express abolition of the much-maligned Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, a historical remnant that had created arbitrary and confusing jurisdictional outcomes for over fifty years. By doing so, the Court streamlined the analysis for appealing stay orders, grounding it in the practical effects of the order rather than archaic procedural distinctions. Furthermore, the Court clarified the scope of the collateral order doctrine by distinguishing between the grant of a Colorado River stay (which is final and appealable) and its denial (which is tentative and not appealable), thus preventing piecemeal litigation and repeated interruptions of trial court proceedings.
Unlock the full brief for Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.