Martin v. Garrett et al
Filing
85
ORDER denying Defendant's 77 Motion to Certify Order under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) re: Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim for Interlocutory Appeal. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on 8/13/2020. (kby)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:17-cv-350-MOC-WCM
MARY MARTIN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
NAKISHA GARRETT, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Wally Wazan’s Motion to Certify
Order under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) re Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim for
Interlocutory Appeal. (Doc. No. 77). Wazan has asked this Court to certify for an interlocutory
appeal its Order of June 2, 2020, (Doc. No. 75), denying Wazan’s motion to dismiss based on the
statute of limitations. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Mary Martin sued the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and several of its
employees in December 2017, alleging that she was the victim of repeated sexual and physical
assaults by her former supervisor Wazan. (Doc. No. 1). Also in December 2017, the North
Carolina Department of Commerce, “on behalf of itself and its employee Wally Wazan,” entered
into a tolling agreement with Martin. The Tolling Agreement states that the “Parties,” defined to
include Wazan, agree to toll any statutes of limitations until either party provides written notice
of the termination of the Tolling Agreement.
Case 1:17-cv-00350-MOC-WCM Document 85 Filed 08/13/20 Page 1 of 7
In October 2018, Martin filed an Amended Complaint, naming Wazan as a defendant and
asserted claims against him specifically. (Doc. No. 31). Wazan subsequently moved to dismiss
the Amended Complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations barred Martin’s claims against
him. (Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 51, 58). The Court entered an Order on June 2, 2020, denying Wazan’s
motion to dismiss. Wazan now asks the Court to certify this matter for an interlocutory appeal
related to that Order. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
II.
DISCUSSION
Certification of a matter for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is an
“extraordinary remedy” that should be used sparingly. Myles v. Laffitte, 881 F.2d 125, 127 (4th
Cir. 1989). Interlocutory appeals are an exception to the deep-rooted rule limiting appeals to
final judgments and, therefore, are appropriate only in rare circumstances. See id. Put
differently, the certification of an interlocutory appeal requires exceptional circumstances that
justify a departure from the basic policy limiting appellate review to final judgments. Coopers &
Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978); see also Manion v. Spectrum Healthcare Res.,
966 F. Supp. 2d 561, 567 (E.D.N.C. 2013) (noting that interlocutory appeals pursuant to §
1292(b) are a “rare exception to the final judgment rule that general prohibits piecemeal
appeals”) (internal quotations omitted). The rationale for granting interlocutory appeals only in
exceptional circumstances was articulated by the Supreme Court in Stringfellow v. Concerned
Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370 (1987):
[T]he finality rule of § 1291 protects a variety of interests that contribute to the
efficiency of the legal system. Pretrial appeals may cause disruption, delay, and
expense for the litigants; they also burden appellate courts by requiring immediate
consideration of issues that may become moot or irrelevant by the end of trial. In
Case 1:17-cv-00350-MOC-WCM Document 85 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 7
addition, the finality doctrine protects the strong interest in allowing trial judges
to supervise pretrial and trial procedures without undue interference.
Id. at 380.
To meet the high standard to pursue an interlocutory appeal, Wazan has the burden of
meeting all three elements set out in the statute. He must prove that the certified issue: (1)
involves a controlling question of law (2) as to which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion and (3) that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Wazan cannot meet any of these required
elements.
Wazan argues that three different holdings from the Court’s June 2 Order should be
certified for interlocutory appeal: (1) whether the Amended Complaint relates back under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15; (2) whether, under North Carolina agency law, Mr. Sherrill, the chief of staff for the
North Carolina Department of Commerce, had authority—actual, apparent, or otherwise—to
bind Wazan to a tolling agreement in his personal capacity; and (3) whether equitable tolling is
available and applicable based on the determinations regarding the previous questions. (Doc.
No. 77, p. 2). In the Order, the Court held that Martin’s Amended Complaint relates back to her
Original Complaint. (Doc. No. 75, p. 11). Additionally, the Court held that “even if the
Amended Complaint did not relate back to the Original Complaint, Wazan is bound by the
Tolling Agreement.” Id. Thus, both of the Court’s rationales, standing alone, support the
Court’s denial of Wazan’s Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, for Wazan to succeed on this Motion,
Wazan would need to show that both holdings meet all three requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b). Wazan cannot do this.
Case 1:17-cv-00350-MOC-WCM Document 85 Filed 08/13/20 Page 3 of 7
First, whether the Tolling Agreement bound Wazan is not a controlling issue of law. The
Fourth Circuit has made clear that “the kind of question best adapted to discretionary
interlocutory review is a narrow question of pure law whose resolution will be completely
dispositive of the litigation, either as a legal or practical matter, whichever way it goes.” Fannin
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 1989 WL 42583, at *5 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished). “An appeal that
would require the court to delve into the facts of the case is not well-suited for interlocutory
review.” Weaver Cooke Constr., LLC v. Stock Bldg. Supply, LLC, No. 5:14-CV-475-BR, 2014
WL 5307501, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2014) (citing Long v. CPI Sec. Sys., Inc., No. 3:12–cv–
396, 2013 WL 3761078, at *2 (W.D.N.C. July 16, 2013) (stating that a controlling question of
law is one which an appeals court can “decide cleanly and quickly”)). Even where the question
presented is a legal one, if resolution of that issue is rooted in the facts of a particular case, the
question is not proper for interlocutory review. Fannin, 1989 WL 42583, at *5 (expressing
reluctance to evaluate legal questions “heavily freighted with the necessity for factual
assessment” on interlocutory appeal).
A determination of whether Wazan was bound by the Tolling Agreement turns on the
application of the unique facts of this case to North Carolina agency law principles. Analyzing
this issue would require the Court of Appeals to “delve into the facts of the case.” Id. Given the
procedural posture of this case and the fact that discovery has yet to start, the Court of Appeals
could not possibly decide this fact-intensive question “cleanly and quickly.” Long, 2013 WL
3761078, at *2. Therefore, whether Wazan is bound under the Tolling Agreement is not a
controlling issue of law pursuant to Fourth Circuit precedent.
Whether the Amended Complaint relates back to the Original Complaint is also not a
controlling issue of law. The Fourth Circuit made clear in Fannin that a controlling issue of law
Case 1:17-cv-00350-MOC-WCM Document 85 Filed 08/13/20 Page 4 of 7
is one that is dispositive of the issue “whichever way it goes.” Fannin, 1989 WL 42583, at *5.
That is not the case here. If the Court of Appeals affirms this Court on the relation back issue,
the affirmance would not resolve the litigation. Instead, the case would return to this Court and
continue after several months of delay.
Wazan also fails to show the existence of substantial grounds for difference of opinion on
any issue he asks this Court to certify. “An issue presents a substantial ground for difference of
opinion if courts, as opposed to parties, disagree on a controlling legal issue.” Randolph v. ADT
Sec. Servs., Inc., No. CIV.A. DKC 09-1790, 2012 WL 273722, at *6 (D. Md. Jan. 30, 2012)
(citing McDaniel v. Mehfoud, 708 F. Supp. 754, 756 (E.D. Va. 1989), appeal dismissed, 927
F.2d 596 (4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished opinion)). “In other words, for interlocutory appeals, it
matters not whether the lower court simply got the law wrong, but whether courts themselves
disagree as to what the law is.” In re Nichols, No. TDC-14-0625, 2014 WL 4094340, at *3 (D.
Md. Aug. 15, 2014) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Wazan fails to show a difference of
opinion between courts for either issue.
First, Wazan fails to show a difference of opinion as to the relation back issue. Rather,
Wazan simply re-argues the merits of whether the Amended Complaint related back to the
Original Complaint under Rule 15. Moreover, even if the Court found that Wazan put forth
substantial grounds for difference of opinion on the relation back issue, Wazan did nothing to
meet that standard as it relates to the agency issue. Wazan cites only two cases in the agency
section of his brief, both of which simply state black letter agency principles. (Doc. No. 77, p. 4
5). Neither case is at odds with this Court’s June 2 Order. Thus, Wazan has failed to show
grounds for a substantial difference of opinion between courts as is required in the Fourth
Circuit.
Case 1:17-cv-00350-MOC-WCM Document 85 Filed 08/13/20 Page 5 of 7
Finally, Wazan fails to show that interlocutory appeal would materially advance this
litigation to its ultimate termination. “Generally, this requirement is met when resolution of a
controlling legal question would serve to avoid a trial or otherwise substantially shorten the
litigation.” Clark Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Allglass Sys., Inc., No. CIV.A. DKC 2002-1590, 2005
WL 736606, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2005) (citing 16 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller &
Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3930, at 432 (2nd ed. 1996)). “The mere
fact that [certification] may save pre-trial and trial effort and expense,” however, “is not
determinative . . . .” Fannin, 1989 WL 42583, at *5 (citation omitted). Indeed, such speculative
savings “can be said of any interlocutory appeal.” Id.
Here, Wazan seeks immediate appeal over the entirety of this Court’s June 2 Order, but
he has not pointed to one “narrow question of pure law.” Fannin, 1989 WL 42583, at *5.
Rather, Wazan seeks to certify three issues that all require significant legal and factual analysis.
While Wazan states in his motion that he would not seek a stay while this matter is on appeal, the
interposition of an appeal will substantially complicate this matter, regardless of whether a stay
is entered. The parties would be required to brief three separate legal issues to the Fourth
Circuit. The parties would potentially have to appear before the Fourth Circuit for oral
argument. Meanwhile, the parties would also have to conduct discovery, much of which will be
focused on Wazan and what he did, without a clear understanding of which claims and parties
will remain intact after the appeal is resolved. Allowing an interlocutory appeal would
substantially hinder the movement of this litigation toward final resolution. Therefore, Wazan
has also failed to meet the third statutory requirement.
In sum, because Wazan fails to satisfy any of the three statutory requirements for
certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Court will deny Wazan’s Motion for Certification.
Case 1:17-cv-00350-MOC-WCM Document 85 Filed 08/13/20 Page 6 of 7
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Wally Wazan’s Motion to Certify Order under 28
U.S.C. 1292(b) re: Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim for Interlocutory Appeal,
(Doc. No. 77), is DENIED.
Signed: August 12, 2020
Case 1:17-cv-00350-MOC-WCM Document 85 Filed 08/13/20 Page 7 of 7
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?