SAMS HOTEL GROUP, LLC v. ENVIRONS, INC. et al

Filing 146

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL - For the reasons set forth, SAMS' 142 Motion to Certify the Court's Order for Interlocutory Appeal is DENIED. (**SEE ENTRY**). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/11/2011. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

SAMS HOTEL GROUP, LLC d/b/a
HOMEWOOD SUITES HOTEL,

Plaintiff,
v.
ENVIRONS, INC.

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-0930-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY
ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Plaintiff, SAMS Hotel Group, LLC d/b/a Homewood Suites Hotel (“SAMS”) has moved
the Court to certify it’s March 2, 2011 Entry on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
141) for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). For the reasons set forth below
SAMS’ motion (Dkt. 142), is DENIED.
The Court will not recite the facts, as the parties involved are well versed on the facts.
Nor will the Court delve into statutory criteria required for the grant of a Section 1292(b) petition
beyond listing them: (1) there must be a question of law; (2) it must be controlling; (3) it must be
contestable; and (4) its resolution must promise to speed up the litigation. Ahrenholz v. Board of
Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 219 F.3d 674, 675 (7th Cir. 2000).
Ultimately, interlocutory appeals are reserved for exceptional or rare cases. Coopers &
Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (the party seeking
an interlocutory appeal must show that exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the

basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment).
Certification of an order for interlocutory appeal is contrary to the federal policy against
piecemeal litigation and is not a routine procedure. Id. The Court finds the given circumstances,
do not satisfy the required statutory criteria.
A district court may authorize the appeal of an interlocutory order if “such order involves
a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion
and…an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation.” Id. The language in the contract is unambiguous and this Court’s resolution of the
issue does not involve a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial difference
of opinion. However, assuming arguendo that the first three prongs of the statute were met, the
final statutory criteria clearly does not apply in this case.
Here, interlocutory appeal would not have the effect of speeding up this litigation or
raising its efficacy, but would have the opposite effect of delaying resolution. This fact is
amplified by the quickly approaching trial date. The final pretrial conference is currently
scheduled for June 22, 2011, and the bench trial set to commence July 11, 2011. Additionally, a
successful interlocutory appeal would not eliminate the need for trial. See Amoroso v. Crescent
Private Capital, L.P., 2003 WL 22839807, at *3 (N.D.Ill. November 23, 2003). The parties
would need to resolve the issue of liability at trial regardless of the limitation on damages which this Court has determined applies. With trial as inevitability, certification would not speed
up this case but assuredly slow it down. See Id.
For the aforementioned reasons, SAMS’ Motion to Certify the Court’s Order for
Interlocutory Appeal (Dkt. 142) is DENIED.
04/11/2011
Date: _______________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution to:
Michael Paul Bishop
COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER
[e-mail],[e-mail]
John Michael Bowman
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Colin Edington Connor
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Frederick D. Emhardt
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail],[e-mail]
M. Edward Krause , III
COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER
[e-mail],[e-mail]
Donna C. Marron
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Brett E. Nelson
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail],[e-mail]
George M. Plews
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]