Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01629/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01629-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

- 1 - 05cv1629 DMS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. ABBE, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05cv1629 DMS (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

MOTION TO CERTIFY ISSUES

FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

[Doc. 291]

vs.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, and DOES 1 through

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

On November 9, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment (the “Summary Judgment Order”). On February 4, 2008, the Court denied

reconsideration of the Summary Judgment Order (the “Reconsideration Order”). In the

Reconsideration Order, the Court indicated the following three portions of the Summary Judgment

Order may be appropriate for interlocutory appeal: (1) the Court’s decision that Plaintiffs’ evidence

failed to create a material question of fact regarding whether Plaintiffs’ pre-shift and post-shift donning

and doffing of uniforms and equipment is compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act; (2) the Court’s

determination that police uniforms (excluding safety equipment) constitute “clothes” within the

meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 203(o); and (3) the Court’s determination that Defendant established

a Section 207(k) schedule as a matter of law (collectively, the “Appealable Issues”).

Case 3:05-cv-01629-DMS-RBB Document 296 Filed 02/12/08 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

- 2 - 05cv1629 DMS 

Plaintiffs now bring a motion “to certify this Court’s Order of February 4, 2008 [the

Reconsideration Order].” The motion is granted in part and denied in part, and further proceedings

shall be stayed while Plaintiffs’ application for interlocutory appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals.

Formal certification of issues for interlocutory appeal requires the Court to find the

interlocutory 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Here, all parties and the Court agree that the three

Appealable Issuesmeet this standard. Those three issues are therefore certified for interlocutory appeal

under the standard set forth in Section 1292(b).

However, the Appealable Issues were decided in the Summary Judgment Order, not the

Reconsideration Order. In the Reconsideration Order, the Court determined reconsideration of the

Summary Judgment Order was unwarranted, since (1) it contained no manifest errors of law; (2) there

has been no intervening change in law; (3) Plaintiffs produced no newly-discovered or previously

unavailable evidence; and (4) reconsideration would not have prevented manifest injustice.

(Reconsideration Order at 1, 5). The determination that reconsideration of the Summary Judgment

Order was unwarranted does not “involve a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial

ground for difference of opinion.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

The Court therefore certifies the Appealable Issues decided in the Summary Judgment Order

for interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and stays further proceedings in

this Court pending a decision on Plaintiffs’ petition for interlocutory review. Certification of the

Reconsideration Order and the issues decided therein is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 12, 2008

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01629-DMS-RBB Document 296 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2