USA, et al. v. Mayo Foundation

Filing 79

ORDER denying 72 Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 31, 2011. (slf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America ex rel. David Ketroser,
Gary Latz, Robert Smith, and William Kennedy,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil No. 07-4676 (JNE/AJB)
ORDER

Mayo Foundation, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Collaborative
Services, Inc., Mayo Clinic-Saint Mary’s Hospital,
and Mayo Clinic-Methodist Hospital,
Defendants.
On July 22, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Mayo Foundation’s Motion
to Dismiss Relators’ Second Amended Complaint. The case is before the Court on Relators’
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (2006) to certify the July 22 Order for appeal. Relators
seek certification of the dismissal of part of their second claim. The Court is not of the opinion
that the July 22 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Union County v.
Piper Jaffray & Co., 525 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that interlocutory review is
“extraordinary”); White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir. 1994) (“A motion for certification
must be granted sparingly, and the movant bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the case
is an exceptional one in which immediate appeal is warranted.”). The Court therefore denies
Relators’ motion [Docket No. 72].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2011
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge