# Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Climax Telephone Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · July 28, 1999 · 186 F.3d 726

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6983368

## Case

- **Full name:** MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, d/b/a Ameritech Michigan v. CLIMAX TELEPHONE COMPANY, John G. Strand, John C. Shea, and David A. Svanda, Commissioners of the Michigan Public Service Commission (In Their Official Capacities and not as Individuals), United States of America, Federal Communications Commission, Intervenors
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 28, 1999
- **Citations:** 186 F.3d 726; 1999 WL 547994
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Cole
- **Judges:** Boggs, Cole, Jones
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6983368

## Opinion text

COLE,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I am in complete agreement with the majority’s disposition of the Commissioners’ Eleventh Amendment claim. I write separately because I do not believe that this court has jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory appeal of the Commissioners’ other claims.
The Commissioners’ Eleventh Amendment claim is clearly appealable under the collateral order exception. See Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Michigan, 5 F.3d 147, 149 (6th Cir.1993). However, the Commissioners’ Tenth Amendment and § 252 claims are not appealable collateral orders because those claims are not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468-69 , 98 S.Ct. 2454 , 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978). In addition, those claims do not fall under the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction because they are not “inextricably intertwined” with the Eleventh Amendment claim, such that the Eleventh Amendment claim could not be determined without first addressing the nonappealable claims. See Chambers v. Ohio Dep’t of Human Servs., 145 F.3d 793, 797 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 408 , 142 L.Ed.2d 331 (1998).
Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s denial of the Commissioners’ motion to dismiss based on the Eleventh Amendment, but dismiss the Commissioners’ other claims for lack of jurisdiction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6983368. Public record. Not legal advice.