Reaffirming the Boundaries of Interlocutory Appellate Jurisdiction and Mandamus Relief Under §1291: Ameriway Corp. v. Chen

Introduction

The Second Circuit’s summary order in Ameriway Corp. v. Chen (No. 24-1298-cv, decided June 3, 2025) addresses two fundamental jurisdictional questions in federal appellate practice: (1) the availability of an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral order doctrine; and (2) the appropriateness of a writ of mandamus to correct an asserted jurisdictional error. Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee Ameriway Corporation (“Ameriway”), a third-party logistics provider, sued May Yan Chen and her companies for conversion, fraud, and RICO violations. Chen filed a third-party complaint against Ameriway’s designated importer of record, Eagle Trading USA, LLC (“Eagle”), and two of its officers. The district court dismissed the third-party complaint as unopposed, and later denied reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Chen sought interlocutory review, challenging the district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and, in the alternative, mandamus relief. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied leave to file a mandamus petition.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals held that:

1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Second Circuit has jurisdiction only over “final decisions” of district courts, unless an exception applies.
2. The collateral order doctrine did not authorize immediate review because the district court’s orders on supplemental jurisdiction were not “important questions separate from the merits” and were intertwined with factual disputes central to the main action.
3. Mandamus relief was unavailable: Chen had adequate alternative remedies (e.g., § 1292(b) certification or Rule 54(b) entry of judgment), and she had not shown a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ or an extraordinary case warranting its issuance.
4. The appellants’ requests were therefore denied: the interlocutory appeal was dismissed, and leave to file a mandamus petition was refused.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Second Circuit relied on a line of authorities that define the limits of appellate jurisdiction and the extraordinary writ of mandamus:

• Marquez v. Silver, 96 F.4th 579 (2d Cir. 2024): Emphasizes that the “first and fundamental question” in any appeal is appellate jurisdiction, both of the appellate court and of the district court.
• Amara v. Cigna Corp., 53 F.4th 241 (2d Cir. 2022): Reaffirms that § 1291 confines review to final decisions, subject only to narrow exceptions.
• In re PB Life & Annuity Co., No. 23-1219, 2024 WL 2972718 (2d Cir. June 13, 2024): Explores the need to establish appellate jurisdiction before addressing merits.
• In re ALBA Petróleos de El Salvador, 82 F.4th 105 (2d Cir. 2023): Discusses the collateral order doctrine and mandamus as alternative paths to interlocutory review.
• Belya v. Kapral, 45 F.4th 621 (2d Cir. 2022): Sets out the three elements of the collateral order doctrine.
• Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004): Establishes the stringent three-part test for mandamus relief—no other adequate means, clear and indisputable right, and appropriateness under the circumstances.
• Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2016), and Amidax Trading Grp. v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 671 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2011): Illustrate the standard for evaluating standing and supplemental jurisdiction at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis unfolded in two parts:

1. Interlocutory Appeal and the Collateral Order Doctrine
   Under § 1291, the Court may review only “final decisions” unless an exception applies. Chen conceded her appeal was not from a final judgment. She invoked the collateral order doctrine, which requires that the order be (1) conclusive, (2) separate from the merits, and (3) effectively unreviewable after final judgment. The Court found disqualifying overlap with the merits because whether supplemental jurisdiction was proper turned on contested facts—Ameriway’s standing and its relationship with Eagle—that were core to the principal RICO claim. As a result, the interlocutory orders could be reviewed only with a final judgment or by appropriate certification under § 1292(b) or Rule 54(b).
2. Mandamus Relief
   As an alternative, Chen sought mandamus. The Court applied the three Cheney criteria:
   • No other adequate means: Chen had not pursued § 1292(b) or Rule 54(b) certification, both adequate alternatives for interlocutory appeal.
   • Clear and indisputable right: The district court acted within its discretion by relying on Ameriway’s plausible allegations to support supplemental jurisdiction. There was no manifest error.
   • Appropriateness: The case did not present extraordinary circumstances, such as usurpation of judicial power or gross abuse of discretion.
   Because Chen failed on these fronts, leave to file a mandamus petition was denied.

Impact

This decision reinforces several critical principles in federal appellate practice:

• Strict Finality Requirement: Parties cannot circumvent § 1291’s final-decision rule by labeling a jurisdictional error “collateral” when it is intertwined with merits and factual disputes.
• Collateral Order Doctrine Is Narrow: Orders affecting supplemental jurisdiction over dependent claims rarely qualify for immediate appeal unless all three elements are met—and rarely will be if factual overlap exists.
• Mandamus as Last Resort: Litigants must exhaust or at least attempt statutory interlocutory pathways (§ 1292(b), Rule 54(b)) before turning to extraordinary writs.
• Encouragement of Early Certification: To preserve appellate rights, district courts and parties should proactively consider interlocutory certification when key jurisdictional issues arise before final judgment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

§ 1291 Final Decision Rule

Only “final” district court decisions—those that end litigation on the merits—are normally appealable. This prevents piecemeal appeals and conserves judicial resources.

Collateral Order Doctrine

An exception allowing immediate appeal of non-final orders that (1) conclusively resolve a specific issue, (2) are separate from the case’s merits, and (3) would be unreviewable if postponed until final judgment.

Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)

Allows federal courts to hear additional state-law claims related to a case’s federal claims, promoting efficiency by avoiding separate proceedings in state court.

Mandamus (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a))

An extraordinary writ by which a higher court commands a lower court to perform—or refrain from performing—a specific act, available only when no adequate alternative remedy exists and the petitioner’s right to relief is clear.

Conclusion

Ameriway Corp. v. Chen reaffirms the Second Circuit’s rigorous approach to appellate jurisdiction. It underscores that interlocutory orders dismissing third-party claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction do not qualify for immediate appeal absent a narrow collateral order. The decision also clarifies that mandamus is an exceptionally rare remedy, especially where statutory interlocutory channels remain unused. Going forward, litigants facing contested jurisdictional rulings should consider early certification under § 1292(b) or Rule 54(b) or wait for a final judgment to preserve their appellate rights. This order thus strengthens the finality principle in federal appellate practice and delineates clear boundaries for interlocutory review and mandamus relief.