Peter Hoffman, et al v. David Bailey, No. 16-30121 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-30121 Document: 00513661402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-30121 Summary Calendar PETER HOFFMAN; SUSAN HOFFMAN, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 1, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiffs - Appellees v. DAVID BAILEY, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:13-CV-5153 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Peter and Susan Hoffman filed suit against David Bailey, asserting claims for defamation under Louisiana law. Bailey filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court denied the motion and Bailey appealed. Hoffman filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-30121 Document: 00513661402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2016 No. 16-30121 appellate jurisdiction because the district court’s order is not final and appealable. Bailey argues that this court has appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine because the district court denied him immunity for reporting the fraudulent misconduct for which the Hoffmans have been criminally convicted. He claims that this “qualified privilege” or “qualified immunity” immunizes him from the defamation action as a matter of law. Alternatively, citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), he contends that the collateral order doctrine applies on the ground that Hoffman’s defamation claims impugn the validity of Hoffman’s felony convictions for fraudulent tax credit applications as to which Bailey had given notice to Louisiana governmental authorities. Bailey cites no authority holding that the denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint for defamation is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. This Court does not have appellate jurisdiction and the appeal is therefore DISMISSED. Hoffman’s motion for damages under Rule 38 is DENIED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
