Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 57 Motion for Certificate of Appealability and vacating January 8, 2016 hearing (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
SANFORD S. WADLER,

7

Case No. 15-cv-02356-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,

10

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION OF
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 57

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION1
In its October 23, 2015 Order, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants‟

14
15

motion to dismiss, allowing Plaintiff to proceed with his retaliation claims under Dodd-Frank, 15

16

U.S.C.§ 78u-6(h)(1)(A), against individual non-officer directors and under Sarbanes-Oxley, 18

17

USC § 1514A, against Bio-Rad and CEO Norman Schwartz. In reaching its conclusions, the

18

Court found that both Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank provide for liability as to non-officer

19

directors who engage in retaliatory conduct. Presently before the Court is Defendants‟ Motion for

20

Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) (“Motion”). Defendants

21

ask the Court to certify the following two issues for appeal2 and stay the case pending completion

22

of the interlocutory appeal should review be granted:
1. Whether Sarbanes-Oxley‟s whistleblower anti-retaliation provision provides for

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
2
In the Motion, Defendants also asked that the Court to certify the question of whether one must
make a disclosure to the Securities Exchange Commission in order to state a claim for retaliation
under the Dodd-Frank Act. In their Reply brief, however, Defendants conceded that certification
of this issue is not necessary because the Ninth Circuit has already agreed to consider it in Somers
v. Digital Realty Trust, Inc., No. C-14-5180 EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2015).

1

liability against non-officer directors for actions taken in their capacity as such.
2. Whether Dodd-Frank‟s whistleblower anti-retaliation provision provides for individual

2
3

liability against non-officer directors for actions taken in their capacity as such.
The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for determination without oral argument and

4
5

therefore vacates the January 8, 2016 hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons

6

stated below, the Motion is DENIED.3

7

II.

Under Section 1292(b), a district court may certify an order for interlocutory review where

8
9

ANALYSIS

the order involves (1) a “controlling question of law,” (2) as to which there are “substantial
grounds for difference of opinion,” and (3) an immediate appeal may “materially advance the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). “The precedent in this circuit has

12

recognized the congressional directive that section 1292(b) is to be applied sparingly and only in

13

exceptional cases . . . .” In re Cement Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 296), 673 F.2d 1020, 1027 (9th

14

Cir. 1981) cause dismissed sub nom. Arizona v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Arizona, 459 U.S.

15

961 (1982) and aff'd sub nom. Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement Co., 459 U.S. 1190 (1983). Thus,

16

“an interlocutory appeal should be certified only when doing so „would avoid protracted and

17

expensive litigation.‟” Sullivan v. Kelly Servs., Inc., No. C 08-3893 CW, 2010 WL 1445683, at *1

18

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2010) (quoting In re Cement, 673 F.2d at 1026; Mateo v. M/S Kiso, 805

19

F.Supp. 792, 800 (N.D.Cal.1992)). “If, in contrast, an interlocutory appeal would delay

20

resolution of the litigation, it should not be certified.” Id. (citing Shurance v. Planning Control

21

Int’l, Inc., 839 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir.1988)).
The Court finds that an immediate appeal will not materially advance the ultimate

22
23

termination of this litigation but rather, will delay resolution of this case. Even if Defendants were

24

to prevail on appeal on the issues for which they seek certification, Plaintiff‟s retaliation claims ˗

25

including his Sarbanes-Oxley claims against Bio-Rad and its CEO, Norman Schwartz ˗ will need

26

to be litigated and will likely require that the parties engage in very similar discovery.

27
3

28

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
2

1

Consequently, an interlocutory appeal will not allow the parties to avoid protracted litigation and

2

will simply create the prospect of two separate appeals. See Sonoda v. Amerisave Mortgage

3

Corp., No. C-11-1803 EMC, 2011 WL 3957436, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2011) (“When litigation

4

will be conducted in substantially the same manner regardless of our decision, the appeal cannot

5

be said to materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation”) (citation omitted).

6

Because the third requirement under Section 1292(b) is not met, the Court need not reach the

7

questions of whether the issues for which Defendants seek certification raise “controlling

8

questions of law” involving “substantial grounds for difference of opinion.”

9

III.

CONCLUSION
The Motion is DENIED.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: December 15, 2015
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3