Federal Trade Commission v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Filing 68

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 57 Defendant's Motion to Certify. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO CERTIFY

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-14-4785 EMC

AT&T MOBILITY LLC,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 57)
13
14
15

Plaintiff the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has filed suit against Defendant AT&T

16

Mobility LLC, asserting that AT&T has engaged in acts or practices “in connection with the

17

marketing of wireless broadband internet access service for smartphones,” Compl. at 1-2, that

18

violate 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). AT&T moved to dismiss the action, arguing that (1) the common carrier

19

exception in § 45(a) applied to AT&T and that (2) the Federal Communications Commission’s

20

recent “Reclassification Order” stripped the FTC of jurisdiction to pursue this case, even if limited

21

to the past misconduct of AT&T. This Court denied AT&T’s motion to dismiss, ruling in the FTC’s

22

favor on both issues. AT&T now moves the Court to certify its order denying dismissal for

23

immediate appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

24
25
26
27
28

Section 1292(b) provides:
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not
otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that
such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate
appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination
of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court
of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action

1

may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from
such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry
of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal
hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the
district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.

2
3
4
5

Id.
“[T]he party pursuing the interlocutory appeal bears the burden of . . . demonstrating” that

6

the district court order at issue involves a controlling question of law; that there is substantial ground

7

for difference of opinion on that legal question; and that an immediate appeal on that legal question

8

may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611

9

F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). All three requirements must be met for there to be certification under

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

§ 1292(b). See id.
In the case at bar, there is no real dispute that the two issues identified by AT&T are

12

controlling questions of law and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate

13

termination of the litigation. As to whether there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion on

14

the legal issues, the Court also finds that this factor weighs in favor of AT&T. As to the first legal

15

issue, there is, in effect, a dispute between other circuit courts on the question1 and the Ninth Circuit

16

has not addressed the issue, which is sufficient to establish a substantial ground for difference of

17

opinion. Furthermore, the scope of the common carrier exception raises novel and difficult

18

questions of first impression. See id. (stating that “[c]ourts traditionally will find that a substantial

19

ground for difference of opinion exists where ‘the circuits are in dispute on the question and the

20

court of appeals of the circuit has not spoken on the point, if complicated questions arise under

21

foreign law, or if novel and difficult questions of first impression are presented’”). As for the

22

second legal issue, it also raises novel and difficult questions. Moreover, it is intimately related to

23

the first legal issue and, therefore, if only as a practical matter, it makes no sense to carve it out of

24

the Court’s certification order.

25
26
1

27
28

Compare Federal Trade Commission v. Miller, 549 F.2d 452 (7th Cir. 1977), with FTC v.
Verity Int’l, Ltd., 443 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Federal Trade Commission v. Verity
International, 194 F. Supp. 2d 270 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (lower court opinion which was appealed to the
Second Circuit).

2

1

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS AT&T’s motion to certify the order of March 31,

2

2015, see Docket No. 54, for immediate appeal. For the reasons stated at the hearing, however, the

3

Court shall not stay the proceedings before it.

4

This order disposes of Docket No. 57.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: May 15, 2015

9
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3