Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05634/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05634-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR

TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

ALL ACTIONS

 /

No. C 07-05634 CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CERTIFY FOR INTERLOCUTORY

APPEAL

On May 9, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part various Defendants’

motions to dismiss in this case. See Order (dkt. 467). In its Order, the Court considered and

rejected the arguments advanced by All Nippon Airways (ANA), China Airlines and Thai

Airways in the “Japan Regulatory Brief” that the case should be dismissed under (1) the state

action doctrine and (2) the implied preemption doctrine. See Mot. (dkt. 304) at v. The Court

explained that it does not agree with Defendants that foreign states should benefit from the

state action doctrine, which pertains to domestic states, noting that it would not be the first to

extend the doctrine so far beyond its original purpose. Order at 25. The Court further noted

that Defendants cited to no authority applying the implied preclusion doctrine to actions

authorized and supervised by foreign governments and that it would not extend the doctrine

so far beyond its original purpose. Id. at 26.

Defendants ANA and China Airlines now jointly move the Court to certify those

rulings for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court finds this matter 

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 488 Filed 06/07/11 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2007\5634\Order re interlocutory appeal.wpd 2

suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and

declines Defendants’ invitation. Interlocutory appeal under section 1292(b) “is to be used

sparingly and only in exceptional cases.” See White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir.

1994). The Court does not believe that this is such a case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Defendants’ Motion and VACATES the upcoming hearing date on that motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2011 CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 488 Filed 06/07/11 Page 2 of 2