Mendez v. R+L Carriers, Inc. et al
Filing
81
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 68 MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2013)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
ROBERT MENDEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
7
8
No. C 11-2478 CW
v.
R+L CARRIERS, INC.; R&L CARRIERS
SHARED SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION OF
INTERLOCUTORY
APPEAL (Docket No.
68)
Defendants.
________________________________/
11
12
On January 8, 2013, Defendants R+L Carriers, Inc. and R+L
13
Carriers Shared Services, LLC moved for certification of an
14
interlocutory appeal of this Court’s order denying their motion
15
for partial summary judgment.
16
Martinez oppose the motion.
17
submissions, the Court denies Defendants’ motion.
18
19
Plaintiffs Robert Mendez and Randy
Having considered all of the parties’
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify
20
an appeal of an interlocutory order only if three factors are
21
present.
22
question of law.”
23
question of law is controlling requires a showing that the
24
“resolution of the issue on appeal could materially affect the
25
outcome of litigation in the district court.”
26
Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing U.S.
27
Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th Cir. 1966)).
28
First, the issue to be certified must be a “controlling
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Establishing that a
In re Cement
1
Second, there must be “substantial ground for difference of
2
opinion” on the issue.
3
established by a party’s strong disagreement with the court’s
4
ruling; the party seeking an appeal must make some greater
5
showing.
6
1992).
7
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
This is not
Mateo v. M/S Kiso, 805 F. Supp. 792, 800 (N.D. Cal.
Third, it must be likely that an interlocutory appeal will
8
“materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
9
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Mateo, 805 F. Supp. at 800.
Whether an
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
appeal may materially advance termination of the litigation is
11
linked to whether an issue of law is “controlling” in that the
12
court should consider the effect of a reversal on the management
13
of the case.
14
§ 1292, an interlocutory appeal should be certified only when
15
doing so “would avoid protracted and expensive litigation.”
16
Cement, 673 F.2d at 1026; Mateo, 805 F. Supp. at 800.
17
contrast, an interlocutory appeal would delay resolution of the
18
litigation, it should not be certified.
19
Control Int’l, Inc., 839 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir. 1988) (refusing
20
to hear a certified appeal in part because the Ninth Circuit’s
21
decision might come after the scheduled trial date).
22
Id.
In light of the legislative policy underlying
In re
If, in
See Shurance v. Planning
“Section 1292(b) is a departure from the normal rule that
23
only final judgments are appealable, and therefore must be
24
construed narrowly.”
25
1064, 1068 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002).
26
statute’s requirements strictly, and should grant a motion for
27
certification only when exceptional circumstances warrant it.
28
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978).
James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d
Thus, the court should apply the
2
The party
1
seeking certification of an interlocutory order has the burden of
2
establishing the existence of such exceptional circumstances.
3
A court has substantial discretion in deciding whether to grant a
4
party’s motion for certification.
5
176, 180 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) rev’d in part on other grounds, 106 F.3d
6
1125 (2d. Cir. 1997).
7
Id.
Brown v. Oneonta, 916 F. Supp.
DISCUSSION
8
Defendants have failed to demonstrate that an interlocutory
9
appeal would “materially advance the ultimate termination of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
litigation.”
11
Court’s November 19, 2012 order denying their motion for summary
12
judgment on Plaintiffs’ meal and rest break claims.
13
No. 67.
14
including numerous claims under the California Labor Code --
15
because Defendants did not move for summary judgment on any of
16
those claims.
17
appeal the summary judgment order, the appeal would not materially
18
affect Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
19
delay the ultimate resolution of this case.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
22
23
See Docket
That order did not address Plaintiffs’ other claims --
Thus, even if Defendants were granted leave to
20
21
They seek leave to appeal the
Instead, it would merely
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the motion for certification
of interlocutory appeal (Docket No. 68) is DENIED.
A case management conference is currently scheduled for March
24
14, 2013.
25
case management statement.
The Court notes that the parties have not filed a joint
The parties should be prepared to
26
27
28
3
1
discuss scheduling matters and set future dates at the case
2
management conference.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
Dated: 3/13/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?