Schoenmann v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 48 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; denying 49 Motion to Stay; denying 53 Motion to Stay Discovery; denying 54 Motion to Shorten Time. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 E. LYNN SCHOENMANN, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, 18 19 20 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. 16 17 No. C 10-03989 CRB On April 21, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed on the basis of Plaintiff’s actual fraud allegations. See dkt. 46. The Court’s Order explicitly did not take a position on the standard of control that should apply to such cases. Id. at 10, n.11 (“Each party urges the Court to adopt its 21 preferred definition of ‘control.’ The Court declines to do so at this time. The Court will entertain 22 arguments on the appropriate standard at the motion for summary judgment stage of the litigation, if 23 24 25 26 27 necessary.”). Nonetheless, Defendants now ask the Court to certify the case for interlocutory appeal, particularly as to the appropriate standard of control. See dkt. 48 at 1. Defendants further ask the Court to stay discovery pending interlocutory appeal, see dkt. 49 – or at least to stay discovery until the motion to certify is heard, see dkt. 53.1 The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and 28 1 They also move to shorten time for a hearing on this last motion. See dkt. 54. 1 declines Defendants’ invitations. Interlocutory appeal under section 1292(b) “is to be used 2 sparingly and only in exceptional cases.” The Court does not believe that this is such a case. 3 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motions and VACATES the upcoming hearing 4 dates on those motions. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: May 27, 2011 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\CRBALL\2010\3989\order re interlocutory appeal.wpd 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?