Roberts et al v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Filing 69

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 61 Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify for Immediate Interlocutory Appeal. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARCUS A. ROBERTS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

v.

9
10

AT&T MOBILITY LLC,

11

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR
IMMEDIATE INTERLOCUTORY
APPEAL
Docket No. 61

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 15-cv-03418-EMC

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs‟ motion to certify for immediate

13
14

interlocutory appeal the Court‟s order granting AT&T‟s motion to compel arbitration. See Docket

15

No. 60 (order). At the hearing on the motion, the Court granted Plaintiffs‟ motion. This order

16

memorializes the Court‟s oral ruling and as supplemented herein.
I. DISCUSSION

17
18
19

A.

Legal Standard
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) governs interlocutory appeals. It provides as follows:

20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

As indicated by the above, the critical requirements of § 1292(b) are (1) the order must

1
2

involve a controlling question of law; (2) there must be a substantial ground for difference of

3

opinion regarding that legal question; and (3) an immediate appeal may materially advance the

4

ultimate termination of the litigation. These requirements are addressed briefly below.

5

B.

Controlling Question of Law
According to Plaintiffs, there are two legal issues that warrant certification: (1) whether

6
7

there is state action under Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v.

8

Federal Communications Commission, 518 U.S. 727 (1996), and (2) whether there is state action

9

under the “encouragement” test. In its papers, AT&T does not dispute that these issues are in fact

compel arbitration was predicated on these issues. See Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S.

12
For the Northern District of California

controlling questions of law. The Court agrees. This Court‟s order granting AT&T‟s motion to

11

United States District Court

10

199, 204 (1996) (concluding that an appellate court can “„exercise jurisdiction over any question

13

that is included within the order that contains the controlling question of law identified by the

14

district court‟”; “the appellate court may address any issue fairly included within the certified

15

order because „it is the order that is appealable, and not the controlling question identified by the

16

district court‟”) (emphasis in original).

17

C.

18

Materially Advance Ultimate Termination of Litigation
Although AT&T makes an argument that an immediate appeal would not materially

19

advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, see, e.g., Opp‟n at 6-7 (pointing out that an

20

arbitration before the AAA typically takes 7 months while an appeal before the Ninth Circuit

21

typically takes 14.3 months), the Court is not persuaded. As Plaintiffs argue, interlocutory appeal

22

will materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation because, regardless of the result

23

of the arbitration proceedings, Plaintiffs are likely to appeal their case to the Ninth Circuit on the

24

basis of their opposition to the motion to compel which raises the issues certified herein. See

25

Mot. at 7; see also Duffield v. Robertson, No. C-95-109 EFL, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14996, at

26

*21 n.5 (N.D. cal. Mar. 13, 1997)) (noting that, “regardless of the result of the arbitration

27

proceedings, plaintiff will appeal her case,” and so it was preferable “to have a ruling from the

28

Ninth Circuit sooner rather than later”).
2

1
2

D.

Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion
Under Ninth Circuit law, a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where the

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

appeal involves an issue over which reasonable judges might differ
and such uncertainty provides a credible basis for a difference of
opinion on the issue. . . . [C]ourts traditionally will find that a
substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where . . . novel
and difficult questions of first impression are presented . . . .
[I]nterlocutory appellate jurisdiction does not turn on a prior court's
having reached a conclusion adverse to that from which appellants
seek relief. A substantial ground for difference of opinion exists
where reasonable jurists might disagree on an issue's resolution, not
merely where they have already disagreed. Stated another way,
when novel legal issues are presented, on which fair-minded jurists
might reach contradictory conclusions, a novel issue may be
certified for interlocutory appeal without first awaiting development
of contradictory precedent.
Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 688 (9th Cir. Wash. 2011) (internal

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

quotation marks omitted).

13

As indicated above, Plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial ground for difference of

14

opinion on two issues: (1) whether there is state action under Denver Area and (2) whether there is

15

state action under the “encouragement” test. The Court agrees that these issues prevent novel and

16

difficult questions of first impression. For example, as indicated in the Court‟s order compelling

17

arbitration, the basis for the Denver Area Court‟s conclusion of state action is unclear. See Docket

18

No. 60 (Order at 10) (stating that “the plurality provided no clear analysis as to why congressional

19

action permitting private conduct amounted to state action in that particular instance”; “[a]ll that is

20

clear is that the plurality refused to adopt the state action analysis suggested by the other Supreme

21

Court Justices,” e.g., Justices Kennedy and Thomas); cf. Alliance for Community Media v. FCC,

22

56 F.3d 105, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Wald, J., dissenting in part) (stating that “[t]he core question

23

here is not whether the cable operators‟ private decisions implicate state action; whatever the

24

answer to that question, we have state action in the government‟s own ban-or-block scheme,

25

which is what is at issue here”). Finally, Plaintiffs‟ position that judicial interpretation of the FAA

26

has crossed the line to constitute “encouragement” and therefore qualifies as state action is not

27

without any basis; no authority has clearly defined the limits as to what constitutes

28

encouragement, and no court has addressed the issue presented here.
3

II.

1
2

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs‟ motion for certification. The

3

Court is mindful of its role as “gatekeeper” under Section 1292(b) and but, as indicated above,

4

there are novel and difficult questions that justify presenting them to the Court of Appeal for

5

consideration on an interlocutory basis, especially as their resolution may materially advance

6

ultimate termination of this litigation.

7

This order disposes of Docket No. 61.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13

Dated: June 27, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4