Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00318/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00318-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441lm Removal- Labor/Mgmt. Relations

---

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 - 08cv318

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICKEY LEE DILTS, RAY RIOS, DONNY

DUSHAJ, on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 08-CV-318 JLS (BLM)

ORDER: (1) DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

MOTION TO APPEND ORDER

GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; (2) SETTING

STATUS HEARING

vs.

PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC; PENSKE

TRUCK LEASING CO LP; et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte application (ECF No. 113) requesting the

Court append its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 112).

Also before the Court is Defendants’ objection. (ECF No. 114.) 

Plaintiffs essentially request that this Court issue a certificate of appealability of its Order, even

though this decision is not a final judgment and not otherwise appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

To warrant an interlocutory appeal, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) there is a controlling question

of law, (2) there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and (3) an immediate appeal may

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); see also In re

Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.1982). However, the legislative history of

Section 1292(b) indicates that this provision “was to be used only in exceptional situations in which

allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and expensive litigation.” In re Cement, 673

Case 3:08-cv-00318-CAB-BLM Document 115 Filed 10/31/11 PageID.<pageID> 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 - 08cv318

F.2d at 1026. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the requirements of Section 1292(b), and the Court

cannot find any reason that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of

the litigation. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request to append the Court’s Order Granting Partial Summary

Judgment is DENIED.

The Court declines to address Defendants’ arguments in this Order. (see ECF No. 114.) The

parties SHALL APPEAR before this Court on December 8, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6. The

parties SHALL BE PREPARED to discuss their plans for moving this case to a full conclusion,

including setting the necessary pre-trial dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00318-CAB-BLM Document 115 Filed 10/31/11 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2