Henry v. State of Alaska Department of Revenue Child Support Services Division et al

Filing 44

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 42 Motion to Stay (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11

RONALD HENRY,

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Plaintiff,
13

v.

Case No.: C11-3255 (JSC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STAY CASE (Dkt. No.
42)

14
15
16
17

STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES DIVISION, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Case Pending Appeal. (Dkt.

20

No. 42). On April 5, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw

21

Consent to a Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 38), which Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit on

22

April 17, 2012. (Dkt. No. 41.) This appeal was not certified by this Court. A district court

23

may certify any order for appellate review that: “ involves a controlling question of law as to

24

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the

25

order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

26

“Certification for interlocutory appeal should be applied sparingly and only granted in

27

exceptional situations in which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and

28

expensive litigation.” In re Cal. Title Ins. Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 785798, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

1

Mar. 3, 2010). The Court has “substantial discretion to decide whether to grant a motion for

2

certification,” and Plaintiff “has the burden of establishing the existence of such exceptional

3

circumstances” that would justify his appeal. Id.

4

Here, Plaintiff has not filed a Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal as

5

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In addition, Plaintiff has not articulated any exceptional

6

circumstances that would justify an interlocutory appeal in this case. The Court therefore

7

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay this case. The Court will, however, grant Plaintiff one

8

additional week to file his opposition, if any, to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 39)

9

and his response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 38). Both shall be filed on or

10

before April 27, 2012. Defendants likewise have an additional week to file any reply, but the

11

hearing will still proceed on May 3, 2012.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: April 19, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2