Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Robert F. Smith, 

Defendant.

No. CV10-2358-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant seeks the right to pursue an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(b). Doc. 51. A district court may certify an issue for interlocutory appeal under 

§ 1292(b) only when (1) there is a “controlling question of law,” (2) on which there are 

“substantial grounds for difference of opinion,” and (3) “an immediate appeal may 

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” In re Cement Antitrust 

Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982)). “All three requirements must be met for 

certification to issue under that statute.” Best Western Int’l, Inc. v. Govan, No. CIV 05-

3247-PHX-RCB, 2007 WL 1545776, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 29, 2007) (citation, quotation 

marks, and brackets omitted). 

 Defendant has not explained why there are substantial grounds for a difference of 

opinion on the Court’s Fifth Amendment ruling. Plaintiff addressed this issue in its 

response (Doc. 54), and Defendant has filed no reply. 

 Because § 1292(b) is a departure from the normal rule that only final judgments 

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 56 Filed 01/04/12 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

are appealable, the statute “must be construed narrowly,” James v. Price Stern Sloan, 

Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1067 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002), and “applied sparingly and only in 

exceptional cases,” United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 788 n.11 (9th Cir. 1959). 

Defendant has not shown that this is one of the rare cases appropriate for interlocutory 

appeal under § 1292(b). 

 Defendant has also filed a motion for enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiff’s 

discovery until the Court has ruled on Defendant’s request for leave to file an 

interlocutory appeal. Doc. 55. The motion will be granted. Defendant shall respond to 

Plaintiff’s written discovery by January 18, 2012. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Take Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 51) is 

denied. 

2. Defendant’s motion for enlargement of time (Doc. 55) is granted. Mr. 

Smith shall comply with the Court’s order of August 12, 2011 (Doc. 35) 

and provide Plaintiff with the information required by the order no later 

than January 18, 2011. The Court reminds Mr. Smith that failure to 

provide the information required by the order will result in sanctions under 

Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including some or all of 

the sanctions listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A). 

 Dated this 4th day of January, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 56 Filed 01/04/12 Page 2 of 2