in R E : 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 May 5, 2025
Decided May 13, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge
D AVID F. H AMILTON, Circuit Judge
J OHN Z. LEE , Circuit Judge
No. 25-1733
IN R E : ETHIOPIAN A IRLINES FLIGHT ET 302 C RASH
J OSHUA M. BABU and EMILY C. BABU , Individually and
as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of J ARED
BABU MWAZO , deceased,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BOEING C OMPANY,
Defendant,
and
C OTCHETT , P ITRE & MCC ARTHY, LLP,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 1:19-cv-02170
Jorge L. Alonso,
Judge.
O R D E R
Five days after we dismissed the Babus’ interlocutory appeal (No. 25-1418) in this
litigation, they filed another (No. 25-1733). The new appeal contests the district court’s
appointment of a guardian ad litem for their grandchild E.C.B. We dismiss this appeal,
too, for lack of jurisdiction.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 25-1733 Page 2
Our prior order stated:
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.
It remains true that any issues arising from the appointment of a guardian can be
resolved on appeal from the final decision. This means that the appointment is not
subject to immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. See Sherri A.D. v. Kirby,
975 F.2d 193, 204 n.18 (5th Cir. 1992); In re Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d 383 (3d Cir.
2006). The Supreme Court has told courts of appeals not to expand the category of
issues for which collateral-order appeals are entertained. See Mohawk Industries, Inc. v.
Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009). We therefore agree with the holdings of Sherri
A.D. and Pressman-Gutman and dismiss this appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --