Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02900/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02900-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

ROCKETPOWER, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STRIO CONSULTING, INC., a Minnesota

corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 19-02900 WHA

ORDER DENYING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

TO CERTIFY FOR APPEAL

AND DENYING

MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

On July 17, 2019, an order transferred this action to the District of Minnesota (Dkt. No.

26). RocketPower immediately moved to certify the order for interlocutory appeal (Dkt. No.

28). The next day, RocketPower waffled on its request to certify, moving for a two-week stay so

that it could “evaluate and decide what appellate relief, if any, to pursue at the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals” (Dkt. No. 29). RocketPower also moved to shorten time to hear the motion to

stay (Dkt. No. 30). Strio opposed certification for appeal (Dkt. No. 31). 

Once a federal court has ordered a case transferred to another court, immediate appellate

review may only be sought by either (i) a petition for writ of mandamus or (ii) by asking the

district court for permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). NBS

Imaging Sys., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Cal., 841 F.2d 297, 298 (9th

Cir. 1998); Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 1968). Section

1292(b) contains three requirements for certification for interlocutory appeal. Specifically, a

controlling question of law must be presented, a substantial ground for difference of opinion

Case 3:19-cv-02900-WHA Document 32 Filed 07/22/19 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

2

must exist, and an interlocutory appeal must materially advance the litigation. All three

requirements must be met. Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). None

has been met here.

First, RocketPower solely contends that it presented a controlling question of law. 

RocketPower never argues that the latter two requirements have been met. This on its own sinks

the motion. 

Second, even RocketPower’s contention that it has presented a controlling question of

law fails. RocketPower merely parroted the issues presented, never explaining how “resolution

of the issue[s] 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. 1981), aff’d sub nom. Arizona v. Ash

Grove Cement Co., 459 U.S. 1190 (1983). As such, RocketPower has not met a single

requirement for interlocutory appeal.

RocketPower’s half-baked motions will not be permitted as a tactical ploy to further

delay resolution of this litigation. This action has caused enough burden on the courts and the

defendant. All three of RocketPower’s motions are DENIED. The Clerk shall transfer this action

to the District of Minnesota.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-02900-WHA Document 32 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 2