Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02337/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02337-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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

LESLIE J. KLASS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 04-2337 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

FIDELITY & GUARANTY LIFE )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. ) )

On September 14, 2005, Plaintiff Leslie J. Klass filed a

motion to modify the Court's September 7, 2005 Order. Mot. (doc.

22). The Order Klass seeks to have modified denied her motion to

remand this case back to state court. Order (doc. 21) at 5. The

Court's decision to deny the request for remand was based on Klass'

denial of an admission stating that she intends to seek less than

$75,000 in damages in this matter. Id.

In the current motion before the Court, Klass requests that

the September 7, 2005 Order be modified to permit "an immediate

appeal to be taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)." Mot. (doc.

22). 

Case 2:04-cv-02337-RCB Document 26 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

When a district judge, in making in a civil action

an order not otherwise appealable under this

section, shall be of the opinion that such order

involves a controlling question of law as to which

there is substantial ground for difference of

opinion and that an immediate appeal from the

order may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation, he shall so state

in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals

which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such

action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an

appeal to be taken from such order, if application

is made to it within ten days after the entry of

the order: Provided, however, That application for

an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in

the district court unless the district judge or

the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so

order.

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Klass argues that "[b]ecause in every case

jurisdiction is a controlling threshold issue and lack of

jurisdiction would be dispositive with respect to this proceeding,

an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation in District Court." Mot. (doc. 22).

The Court is not of the opinion that its order denying Klass'

motion for remand involves a controlling question of law as to

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. It

is clear that the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold has not been

met. Thus, the Court shall deny Klass' motion to modify the order

to allow for an immediate interlocutory appeal of the matter.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Klass' Motion to Modify Order (doc. 22) is

DENIED.

DATED this 4th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02337-RCB Document 26 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:04-cv-02337-RCB Document 26 Filed 04/04/06 Page 3 of 3