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)

Download PDF
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

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?