## Facts

- Pacific States Steel Corporation (PSSC) shut down its Union City, California steel plant in 1978, leaving contaminated property and an insolvent retiree medical plan for former steelworkers and their dependents.
- Eldon Cordoza and other retirees filed a federal class action under ERISA seeking continued medical benefits.
- The district court (Judge Marilyn Hall Patel) ordered PSSC to continue funding medical benefits, but PSSC had few assets to satisfy the obligation.
- To generate money for the medical plan, the court and parties pursued a remediation-and-redevelopment plan for the contaminated plant site, supervised through post-judgment proceedings.
- After an initial special master failed over several years to move redevelopment forward, the court appointed attorney Bruce Train as special master, along with his associates Theodore Sorensen and Hans Lemcke (collectively, Train).
- Train formed entities (including Passco-related companies) to pursue development of the site. His compensation included hourly fees and an interest connected to the developed land.
- Train negotiated with the Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Union City (RDA) and arranged some limited funding and clean-up activity, but after years the negotiations stalled, with the district court finding that Train’s rejection of viable RDA offers and his demands for additional compensation played a major role.
- Allegations arose about Train’s conduct as special master. The district court opened an investigation, limited Train’s authority, and ordered an audit/accounting.
- In a detailed order, the district court terminated Train and his associates as special masters, set final compensation at roughly $1.2 million for each of the three attorneys, ordered Bruce Train to disgorge more than $100,000, and required him to pay nearly $25,000 in attorney fees.
- Train and related entities filed a notice of appeal from the termination and compensation/disgorgement orders while the district court’s remedial administration continued under a new special master.

## Issues

1. May a court-appointed special master seek appellate review of orders terminating his appointment and fixing or reducing his compensation, including disgorgement?
2. Are orders terminating a special master and setting compensation/disgorgement, entered during continuing post-judgment administration, “final decisions” appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291?
3. If not final, do those orders qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral-order doctrine of *Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.*?
4. If no appeal lies, should the Ninth Circuit treat the filing as a petition for writ of mandamus and grant extraordinary relief?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit accepted that a special master can be an aggrieved person with the ability to seek review of orders that directly affect him.
- The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged orders were not final decisions under § 1291 in the context of continuing post-judgment proceedings.
- The court held the orders did not fall within the *Cohen* collateral-order exception.
- The court construed the notice of appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court denied mandamus because Train did not show the required clear entitlement to extraordinary relief and the district court’s actions fell within its authority to supervise its appointed officers.

## Legal Principles

- Court-appointed special masters may, in appropriate circumstances, seek appellate review of orders that directly affect their personal interests, but they still must satisfy ordinary jurisdictional limits.
- Orders entered during ongoing post-judgment remedial supervision—such as orders limiting a special master’s authority, terminating the appointment, and fixing compensation or requiring disgorgement—generally are not “final decisions” appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- The collateral-order doctrine applies only to a narrow set of orders that (1) conclusively decide the issue, (2) address an important matter separate from the merits, and (3) would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment; supervision and compensation rulings tied to continuing remedial administration usually do not qualify.
- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when the petitioner lacks an adequate alternative means of relief and shows a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ; appellate courts give substantial deference to district courts’ management of special masters and remedial processes.

## Conclusion

In this long-running ERISA benefits case, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s orders terminating Special Master Bruce Train and setting final compensation and disgorgement during continuing remedial administration were not immediately appealable under § 1291 or the collateral-order doctrine, and it denied mandamus relief after treating Train’s appeal as a mandamus petition.


Cordoza v. Pacific States Steel Corporation, 320 F.3d 989 (2003)