Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death action in California state court against Eisner Health and various medical providers. Defendants removed the case to federal court under the federal qualified health center immunity statute, 42 U.S.C. § 233(l)(2), and the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The United States moved to remand the case to state court, and the district court granted that motion on April 18, 2025, denying the defendants' federal-officer immunity defense. The district court stayed execution of the remand for 60 days to allow defendants to seek a stay pending appeal. Defendants filed a motion to stay pending appeal on May 9, 2025, which the district court denied on June 2, 2025, at which point it ordered the case remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court and filed a separate transmittal order. Defendants filed their notice of appeal on July 2, 2025.
The central issue on appeal was whether the defendants' notice of appeal was timely filed. The defendants argued that the June 2, 2025 order denying the stay and effectuating the remand was the final, appealable order, while the government contended the April 18 order was the immediately appealable collateral order. The panel had to determine when the appeal period began to run under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)–(b) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A).
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction because the defendants' notice of appeal was untimely. The court determined that the district court's April 18, 2025 order denying federal-officer immunity was an immediately appealable collateral order under the Cohen doctrine, and 'entry' occurred when the order was filed on the civil docket that day. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a), the notice of appeal was due within 30 days (by May 19, 2025), or 60 days if the United States was a party (by June 17, 2025). The July 2, 2025 filing was untimely under either deadline.
The court rejected the defendants' argument that the stay of execution tolled the appeal deadline, citing McNeil v. Gittere for the principle that a stay of execution does not toll the time to file a notice of appeal. The court also rejected the dissent's view that the remand order should be treated as a final judgment subject to the separate document rule under Rule 58, holding that the immunity determination within the remand order made it a collateral order subject to the timely-appeal requirements. Because the appeal was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the court did not reach the merits of the underlying immunity or remand issues.
Key Takeaways
- A district court order denying federal-officer immunity and granting remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 is an immediately appealable collateral order entered when filed on the civil docket.
- The 30-day appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) begins to run upon docket entry of the collateral order, not upon a later order effectuating the remand or denying a stay pending appeal.
- A stay of execution of a remand order does not toll the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.
- The collateral order doctrine applies to remand orders denying federal-officer immunity even though 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) provides statutory review, because the immunity determination is separate from the merits and effectively unreviewable later.
- Timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be excused by the court.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the timing of appeals from remand orders that deny federal-officer immunity in the Ninth Circuit. By treating such orders as collateral orders rather than final judgments, the court establishes that the appeal clock starts at docket entry of the immunity ruling, not at a later transmittal order. This creates a trap for unwary defendants who might wait for a separate document or final remand implementation. The ruling reinforces the strict jurisdictional nature of appeal deadlines and the limited tolling effect of stays pending appeal. Practitioners must file notices of appeal promptly after immunity rulings, even if the district court stays the remand.