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)

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