LAURO LINES s.r.l. v. Chasser

Background

Passengers (or their estates) aboard the cruise ship Achille Lauro sued the shipowner, an Italian company, for injuries and the wrongful death of a passenger after the ship was hijacked in October 1985. The company pointed to a clause on each passenger ticket that required any suit to be filed in Naples, Italy, and moved in the New York district court to dismiss. The district court denied the motions, finding the ticket did not reasonably notify passengers they were giving up the chance to sue in the United States. The company tried to appeal immediately, the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal as not final, and the Supreme Court agreed to resolve a split among appeals courts.

Reasoning

The central question was whether an order denying dismissal based on a forum-selection clause can be appealed right away as a special “collateral” final order under the federal appeal statute (28 U.S.C. §1291). The Court said no. Appeals are normally allowed only from final decisions that end the case. A narrow exception (the collateral order doctrine) applies only when three conditions are met, including that the right would be effectively destroyed if review waited until after trial. The Court found it unnecessary to decide two of those conditions and held the third was not met here: the company’s right to have suits heard only in Naples can be vindicated by appealing after final judgment, unlike rights that completely prevent a trial (for example, absolute immunity or double jeopardy). The Court also noted that the federal policy favoring enforcement of forum clauses is a merits issue, not a reason for immediate appeal.

Real world impact

The decision means defendants who rely on foreign forum clauses cannot get an immediate appeal just because a district court lets the case proceed; they must defend in the district court and then appeal after final judgment. The ruling resolves conflicting appeals-court decisions and reinforces the general rule against piecemeal interlocutory appeals.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the result and emphasized that the right to be sued only in a chosen forum is not important enough to overcome the strong policy against interlocutory appeals.