Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03893/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03893-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHERINE E. SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 TO

10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-3893 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO CERTIFY

INTERLOCUTORY

APPEAL

Defendant Kelly Services, Inc. moves for an order certifying

an interlocutory appeal of the question addressed in the Court’s

October 16, 2009 Summary Judgment Order: Does “California law

require a temporary staffing agency to pay its employees for time

and expense relating to interviews with a staffing agency’s

customer?” October 16, 2009 Order at 1. Plaintiff opposes the

motion. The matter was taken under submission on the papers. 

Having considered all of the papers submitted by the parties, the

Court denies Defendant’s motion.

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify

Case 4:08-cv-03893-CW Document 64 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 4
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

an appeal of an interlocutory order only if three factors are

present. First, the issue to be certified must involve a

"controlling question of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Establishing

that a question of law is controlling requires a showing that the

"resolution of the issue on appeal could materially affect the

outcome of litigation in the district court." In re Cement

Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 Second, there must be "substantial ground for difference of

opinion" on the issue. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). A substantial ground

for difference of opinion is not established by a party's strong

disagreement with the court's ruling; the party seeking an appeal

must make some greater showing. Mateo v. M/S Kiso, 805 F. Supp.

792, 800 (N.D. Cal. 1992). 

 Third, it must be likely that an interlocutory appeal will

"materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Mateo, 805 F. Supp. at 800. Whether an appeal

may materially advance termination of the litigation is linked to

whether an issue of law is "controlling" in that the court should

consider the effect of a reversal on the management of the case.

Id. In light of the legislative policy underlying § 1292, an

interlocutory appeal should be certified only when doing so "would

avoid protracted and expensive litigation." In re Cement, 673 F.2d

at 1026; Mateo, 805 F. Supp. at 800. If, in contrast, an

interlocutory appeal would delay resolution of the litigation, it

should not be certified. Shurance v. Planning Control Int'l, Inc.,

839 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 "Section 1292(b) is a departure from the normal rule that only

Case 4:08-cv-03893-CW Document 64 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 4
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 3

final judgments are appealable, and therefore must be construed

narrowly." James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1068

n.6 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, the court should apply the statute's

requirements strictly, and should grant a motion for certification

only when exceptional circumstances warrant it. Coopers & Lybrand

v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978). The party seeking

certification of an interlocutory order has the burden of

establishing the existence of such exceptional circumstances. Id. 

A court has substantial discretion in deciding whether to grant a

party's motion for certification. Brown v. Oneonta, 916 F. Supp.

176, 180 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) rev’d in part on other grounds, 106 F.3d

1125 (2nd Cir. 1997). 

Defendants argue that there are substantial differences of

opinion on controlling questions of law regarding the issue they

wish to appeal because it has not been directly addressed by the

Ninth Circuit or any other court in the county. However, “‘the

mere presence of a disputed issue that is a question of first

impression, standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate a

substantial ground for difference of opinion under § 1292(b).’” In

re Conseco Life Ins. Cost Of Ins. Litig., 2005 WL 5678841, at *7

(C.D. Cal.) (citing Flor v. Bot Financial Corp., 79 F.3d 281, 284

(2d Cir. 1996); see also Lenz v. Universal Music Group, 2008 WL

4790669, at *2 (N.D. Cal.). Similarly, “‘substantial ground for

difference of opinion does not exist merely because there is a

dearth of cases.’” S.A. v. Tulare County Office of Educ., 2009 WL

331488, at *6 (E.D. Cal.) (Citing White v. Nix, 43 F. 3d 374, 378

(8th Cir. 1994). 

Case 4:08-cv-03893-CW Document 64 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 4
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 4

Defendant argues that continuing the litigation will be timeconsuming, expensive and a potential waste of judicial resources

if, after trial, the Ninth Circuit disagrees with the Court’s

summary judgment ruling. Because Plaintiff asserts only one claim,

an interlocutory appeal, if successful, would likely advance the

ultimate termination of this litigation. This is true any time a

case-dispositive motion is denied. However, if the appeal were to

fail, the termination of the litigation would be delayed, and the

Court of Appeals would be burdened with a second appeal. 

Finally, there are no exceptional circumstances warranting

interlocutory appeal. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s

motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal is denied. 

Docket No. 45. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/07/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-03893-CW Document 64 Filed 04/07/10 Page 4 of 4