Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02767/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02767-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Granite Rock Company,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Freight, C et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 04-02767 JW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATION OF AN ORDER FOR

APPEAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1292(b)

Plaintiff Granite Rock filed a “Motion Requesting Certification of an Order for Appeal Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1292(b),” and noticed the motion for hearing on January 9, 2006. Plaintiff seeks an immediate

appeal of the Court’s “Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Jury Demand,” which was issued on November 21, 2005

(“Order”). Plaintiff contends that the Order raises a question of first impression, namely “whether under

California Trucking Association v. Teamsters Local 70, 679 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1981), a party to a

collective bargaining agreement has repudiated the agreement by (1) denying the existence of the contract,

thus forcing the other party to pursue its case in district court, and (2) thereafter asserting inconsistent, bad

faith legal positions with respect to arbitrability during the course of the lawsuit.” Motion, p.3. The Court

finds it appropriate to take the motion under submission for decision based on the papers filed by the

parties without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Based upon all papers filed to date, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1292(b), an interlocutory order should be certified for an immediate appeal if the order “involves a

controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference opinion, and an immediate

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 95 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” It is this Court’s

view that the Order Plaintiff seeks to appeal does not involve a controlling question of law as to which there

is substantial ground for difference opinion. Rather, it is the Court’s view that the Order involved a

relatively straightforward analysis of the law of waiver and repudiation to the particular facts of this case. 

Dated: January 4, 2006

04cv2767certification

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 95 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Adam James Peters apeters@littler.com

Alan Sam Levins alevins@littler.com

Deborah Rice drice@littler.com

Duane B. Beeson dbeeson@beesontayer.com

Gabriel Saul Levine gsl@sfcounsel.com

Kimberly Lynn Owens kowens@littler.com

Lisa W. Pau lpau@beesontayer.com

Philip Paturzo ppaturzo@littler.com

Ronald A. Peters rpeters@littler.com

Dated: January 4, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 95 Filed 01/04/06 Page 3 of 3