Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01962/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01962-17/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK LINN BRYAN et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC

ORDER

Defendant Mark Linn Bryan has moved for leave to appeal this Court’s Order 

denying his Amended Motion to Dismiss. (Mot. Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 166); 

see also Order (ECF No. 165).) Generally, a party may appeal only after final 

judgment. Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., 548 F.3d 738, 747 (9th 

Cir. 2008). In narrow circumstances, however, a district court has authority to certify a 

question for interlocutory appeal before final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); 

Couch v. Telescope, Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). The party seeking 

certification of an interlocutory appeal bears the burden of establishing three 

elements: (1) the order involves a controlling question of law, (2) there is substantial 

ground for differences of opinion as to the question for which certification is sought, 

and (3) an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate resolution of 

litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). “Certification under § 1292(b) requires the district 

court to expressly find in writing that all three § 1292(b) requirements are met.”

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 167 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 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

2

Couch, 611 F.3d at 633. Interlocutory appeals are granted “sparingly and only in 

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

Defendant does not address any of section 1292(b)’s elements. Rather, 

Defendant expresses disagreement with this Court’s ruling and with this Court’s 

decision to rule on his Amended Motion to Dismiss without a hearing. (Mot. at 1–3.) 

However, Defendant fails to identify any controlling question of law or explain why an 

immediate appeal would advance the litigation, and a “party’s strong disagreement 

with a court’s ruling is not” a “substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Couch, 

611 F.3d at 633. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File an Interlocutory 

Appeal will be denied.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 166) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DJC4 – Bryan22cv1962.MotInterlocAppeal

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 167 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 2