Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00430/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00430-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, )

PAUL ROZWADOWSKI, and BRIAN )

WOLFE, individually and on behalf of )

themselves and others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

DAIRY AMERICA, INC., and )

CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

NO. 1:09-CV-00430-AWI-DLB

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

AND STATISTICALLY CLOSE

THE CASE

On February 9, 2010, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint with leave to amend. The court’s dismissal was based on its

determination that the filed rate doctrine rendered Plaintiffs’ claims for money damages nonjusticiable. In the order, the court noted that “the filed rate doctrine consists of a body of law that

has been the subject of conflicting interpretations.” Doc. # 83 at 20:7-8. The court noted it

would “give favorable consideration to the motion of either party for interlocutory appeal on the

issue of whether the filed rate doctrine bars Plaintiffs’ claims in this case.” Id. 

On March 8, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),

where a court issues an order that is not otherwise appealable, and where “such order involves a

controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion . . . .”

the appellate court may permit appeal to be taken from such order. Id. Given that there has been

Case 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG Document 89 Filed 03/10/10 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

no separate motion for interlocutory appeal, this court assumes for present purposes that the

memorandum opinion and order of March 8 sufficiently stated the controlling question of law,

the basis for reasonable difference of opinion, and its opinion that immediate appeal would

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation such that the appellate court may

exercise jurisdiction pursuant to section 1292(b).

Based on its understanding that the appellate court may exercise jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs’ appeal and pursuant to its need to handle and account for its work load, the court will

stay further proceedings in this case and will order that the case be statistically closed.

THEREFORE, in consideration of the forgoing, it is hereby ORDERED that proceedings

in this action shall be stayed until such time as the appellate court renders its decision or either

party moves to re-institute proceedings. The clerk of the court shall statistically CLOSE THE

CASE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG Document 89 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2