Mendez v. R+L Carriers, Inc. et al

Filing 81


Download PDF
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?