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