In re: Ethiopian Airlines Flight Et 302 Crash Joshua M. Babu v. Boeing Company

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 17, 2025
Decided April 23, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1418
IN RE: ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES FLIGHT ET 302 CRASH
JOSHUA M. BABU and EMILY C. BABU, Individually and
as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of JARED
BABU MWAZO, deceased,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BOEING COMPANY,
Defendant,
and
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES and COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 1:19-cv-02170
Jorge J. Alonso,
Judge.
O R D E R
Joshua and Emily Babu, representatives of the estate of a child who died in an
airline crash, have filed an interlocutory appeal. After receiving the appellants'
jurisdictional memorandum, we dismiss the appeal.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1418 Page 2
The estate has been represented by a law firm (the Clifford Firm) that has
represented most of the decedents’ estates in this consolidated litigation. The Babus say
they want to be represented by a different lawyer, and in 2022 the Clifford Firm moved
to withdraw as their counsel, but the district judge deferred decision until a new lawyer
for the Babus had filed an appearance. That did not occur until July 2024. While still
representing the estate, the Clifford Firm proposed that a guardian ad litem be
appointed for E.C.B., a minor child of decedents Jared Babu Mwazo and Mercy Ngami
Ndivo. Joshua and Emily Babu oppose that request and, in the alternative, want any
guardian to be a citizen of Kenya who will argue for the application of Kenyan law
(even though the crash occurred in Ethiopia, and the substantive tort claims rest on
decisions that Boeing made in the United States). That controversy, too, remains
pending in the district court. Although the judge has indicated an intent to appoint a
guardian ad litem, the judge has yet to do so.
Despite the lack of a final decision on the substantive claim—indeed, the lack of a
final decision on any of the controverted issues—the Babus have appealed. They say
that the district court’s decisions can be appealed as collateral orders or as injunctions.
The latter argument is implausible. The judge has not enjoined anyone to do
anything, or declined to issue an injunction. The judge’s decisions (or non-decisions)
could affect damages, but damages are legal rather than equitable remedies.
The Supreme Court held in Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (1985),
and Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981), that neither orders
disqualifying lawyers nor orders declining to do so can be appealed before the final
decision in the litigation. The Babus nonetheless rely on Fidelity National Title Insurance
Co. v. Intercounty National Title Insurance Co., 310 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2002), for the
proposition that orders denying a lawyer’s request to withdraw are immediately
appealable. They ask us to extend Fidelity National Title to a situation in which a district
judge defers acting on a request to withdraw until a new lawyer files an appearance.
But Fidelity National Title does not establish the proposition for which the Babus cite it.
The question in Fidelity National Title was whether an order by a district court
compelling a lawyer to provide services against his will, and without prospect of
compensation, was appealable. We held that it is, explaining:
Because an order compelling a lawyer to work without prospect of
compensation is unrelated to the merits of the dispute, cannot be rectified
at the end of the case, and has a potential to cause significant hardship, we

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1418 Page 3
join the second circuit in holding that the order is immediately appealable
as a collateral order.
310 F.3d at 539.
In this suit, unlike Fidelity National Title, no one has been compelled to represent
the Babus without prospect of compensation. As far as we can see, all of the issues they
seek to present—concerning the identity of counsel, the appointment of a guardian,
choice of law, and the availability of punitive damages—can be resolved by an appeal at
the end of the case. The interlocutory appeal therefore is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.

-- 3 of 3 --