Pakootas, et al v. Teck Cominco Metals, et al

Filing 2642

ORDER DENYING 2636 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (TNC, Case Administrator)

Case 2:04-cv-00256-SAB

ECF No. 2642

filed 08/09/23

PageID.65133 Page 1 of 2

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1
2

Aug 09, 2023

3

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
9 JOSEPH A. PAKOOTAS, an individual
10 and enrolled member of the Confederated

No. 2:04-CV-00256-SAB

11 Tribes of the Colville Reservation; and
12 DONALD R. MICHEL, an individual and

ORDER DENYING

13 enrolled member of the Confederated

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

14 Tribes of the Colville Reservation; and

CERTIFICATION UNDER

15 THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)

16 THE COVILLE RESERVATION,
Plaintiffs,

17
18

and

19 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

20
21

v.

22 TECK COMINCO METALS, LTD., a
23 Canadian corporation,
24

Defendant.

25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) *1

Case 2:04-cv-00256-SAB

1

ECF No. 2642

filed 08/09/23

PageID.65134 Page 2 of 2

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Certification Under 28 U.S.C.

2 § 1292(b) of Orders on Ripeness and for Stay, ECF No. 2636. The motion was
3 considered without oral argument. Defendant moves to certify two Orders for
4 interlocutory appeal that address whether Plaintiffs’ claims for natural resource
5 damages are ripe. A district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to
6 certify a ruling for interlocutory appeal when it (1) “involves a controlling question
7 of law”; (2) “there is substantial ground for difference of opinion”; and (3) “an
8 immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination
9 of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In this case, the Court finds the § 1292(b)
10 factors are not met, and certification of either Order for interlocutory appeal is not
11 warranted.
12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

13

1.

Defendant’s Motion for Certification Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of

14 Orders on Ripeness and for Stay, ECF No. 2636, is DENIED.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter

16 this Order and to provide copies to counsel.
17

DATED this 9th day of August 2023.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Stanley A. Bastian

Chief United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) *2