Because certified resistance is not an available defense to an official-capacity fit, we conclude that Walsh, Nicholson, Hurn, and Mc, Kamey might not assert competent immunity as a defense against fit in their main capacities. For the reasons set forth listed below, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the district court's entry of summary judgment, and REMAND for additional procedures consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUNDA. Jurisdiction * 2 Usually, the rejection of summary judgment is a non-final order that can not be appealed under 28 U.S.C. 1291. The interlocutory appeal of the rejection of qualified resistance is acceptable under the collateral-order doctrine "just 'to the extent that it switches on a concern of law.'"Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F. 3d 675, 679 (sixth Cir.
City of Detroit, 408 F. 3d 305, 309 (6th Cir. 2005))." [A] defendant, entitled to conjure up a certified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether the pretrial record state a 'genuine' concern of truth for trial."Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S.
2151, 132 L.Ed. 2d 238 (1995 )." [A] n appellant's contention that the district court erred in finding a genuine concern of fact for trial is not the kind of legal concern which we may captivate on an interlocutory basis."Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F. 3d 725, 743 (sixth Cir. 2006). Incorrect arguments contesting whether a genuine concern of fact exists do not deny this court of jurisdiction; "even where, as here, the offender makes 'impermissible arguments regarding conflicts of truth,' if the accused also raises the purely legal issue of whether the complainant's facts reveal that the defendant violated clearly established law, 'then there is a problem over which this court has jurisdiction.'"Quigley, 707 F. 3d at 680 (quoting Estate of Carter, 408 F. 3d at (310 )).
Just like government officials, we permit "private parties to get interlocutory review of rejections of qualified immunity."Brotherton v. More Discussion Posted Here , 173 F. 3d 552, 559 (sixth Cir. 1999). Appropriately, we have jurisdiction over this appeal of the rejection of qualified immunity. B. Factual Background, The plaintiff-appellee in this fit is United Pet Supply, Inc., ("Animal Supply"), a personal corporation that owns several pet stores, consisting of the Hamilton Place Mall animal store at the center of this conflict ("the family pet shop").
0 
Star