Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03418/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03418-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS A. ROBERTS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AT&T MOBILITY LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03418-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR 

IMMEDIATE INTERLOCUTORY 

APPEAL

Docket No. 61

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs‟ motion to certify for immediate 

interlocutory appeal the Court‟s order granting AT&T‟s motion to compel arbitration. See Docket 

No. 60 (order). At the hearing on the motion, the Court granted Plaintiffs‟ motion. This order 

memorializes the Court‟s oral ruling and as supplemented herein.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) governs interlocutory appeals. It provides as follows:

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).

Case 3:15-cv-03418-EMC Document 69 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

As indicated by the above, the critical requirements of § 1292(b) are (1) the order must 

involve a controlling question of law; (2) there must be a substantial ground for difference of 

opinion regarding that legal question; and (3) an immediate appeal may materially advance the 

ultimate termination of the litigation. These requirements are addressed briefly below.

B. Controlling Question of Law

According to Plaintiffs, there are two legal issues that warrant certification: (1) whether 

there is state action under Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. 

Federal Communications Commission, 518 U.S. 727 (1996), and (2) whether there is state action 

under the “encouragement” test. In its papers, AT&T does not dispute that these issues are in fact 

controlling questions of law. The Court agrees. This Court‟s order granting AT&T‟s motion to 

compel arbitration was predicated on these issues. See Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 

199, 204 (1996) (concluding that an appellate court can “„exercise jurisdiction over any question 

that is included within the order that contains the controlling question of law identified by the 

district court‟”; “the appellate court may address any issue fairly included within the certified 

order because „it is the order that is appealable, and not the controlling question identified by the 

district court‟”) (emphasis in original). 

C. Materially Advance Ultimate Termination of Litigation

Although AT&T makes an argument that an immediate appeal would not materially 

advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, see, e.g., Opp‟n at 6-7 (pointing out that an 

arbitration before the AAA typically takes 7 months while an appeal before the Ninth Circuit 

typically takes 14.3 months), the Court is not persuaded. As Plaintiffs argue, interlocutory appeal 

will materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation because, regardless of the result 

of the arbitration proceedings, Plaintiffs are likely to appeal their case to the Ninth Circuit on the 

basis of their opposition to the motion to compel which raises the issues certified herein. See 

Mot. at 7; see also Duffield v. Robertson, No. C-95-109 EFL, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14996, at 

*21 n.5 (N.D. cal. Mar. 13, 1997)) (noting that, “regardless of the result of the arbitration 

proceedings, plaintiff will appeal her case,” and so it was preferable “to have a ruling from the 

Ninth Circuit sooner rather than later”).

Case 3:15-cv-03418-EMC Document 69 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

D. Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion

Under Ninth Circuit law, a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where the 

appeal involves an issue over which reasonable judges might differ 

and such uncertainty provides a credible basis for a difference of 

opinion on the issue. . . . [C]ourts traditionally will find that a 

substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where . . . novel 

and difficult questions of first impression are presented . . . . 

[I]nterlocutory appellate jurisdiction does not turn on a prior court's 

having reached a conclusion adverse to that from which appellants 

seek relief. A substantial ground for difference of opinion exists 

where reasonable jurists might disagree on an issue's resolution, not 

merely where they have already disagreed. Stated another way, 

when novel legal issues are presented, on which fair-minded jurists 

might reach contradictory conclusions, a novel issue may be 

certified for interlocutory appeal without first awaiting development 

of contradictory precedent.

Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 688 (9th Cir. Wash. 2011) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

As indicated above, Plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial ground for difference of 

opinion on two issues: (1) whether there is state action under Denver Area and (2) whether there is 

state action under the “encouragement” test. The Court agrees that these issues prevent novel and 

difficult questions of first impression. For example, as indicated in the Court‟s order compelling 

arbitration, the basis for the Denver Area Court‟s conclusion of state action is unclear. See Docket 

No. 60 (Order at 10) (stating that “the plurality provided no clear analysis as to why congressional 

action permitting private conduct amounted to state action in that particular instance”; “[a]ll that is 

clear is that the plurality refused to adopt the state action analysis suggested by the other Supreme 

Court Justices,” e.g., Justices Kennedy and Thomas); cf. Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 

56 F.3d 105, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Wald, J., dissenting in part) (stating that “[t]he core question 

here is not whether the cable operators‟ private decisions implicate state action; whatever the 

answer to that question, we have state action in the government‟s own ban-or-block scheme,

which is what is at issue here”). Finally, Plaintiffs‟ position that judicial interpretation of the FAA 

has crossed the line to constitute “encouragement” and therefore qualifies as state action is not 

without any basis; no authority has clearly defined the limits as to what constitutes 

encouragement, and no court has addressed the issue presented here.

Case 3:15-cv-03418-EMC Document 69 Filed 06/27/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs‟ motion for certification. The 

Court is mindful of its role as “gatekeeper” under Section 1292(b) and but, as indicated above, 

there are novel and difficult questions that justify presenting them to the Court of Appeal for 

consideration on an interlocutory basis, especially as their resolution may materially advance 

ultimate termination of this litigation.

This order disposes of Docket No. 61.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03418-EMC Document 69 Filed 06/27/16 Page 4 of 4