Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01347/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01347-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

1

 Because the Court has provided a detailed description of the case in the Summary Judgment

Order, it does not repeat them here.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH COCCHI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-1347 JCS

ORDER DENYING CIRCUIT CITY

STORES, INC.’S REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1292(B) [Docket No. 74]

Plaintiff, Joseph Cocchi, filed this wrongful termination action against his former employer,

Circuit City, and his supervisor, James McGrath. In an order filed April 3, 2006, the Court granted

in part and denied in part Circuit City’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“the Summary Judgment

Order”). One claim remains in the case, a claim against Circuit City for wrongful termination in

violation of public policy based on the right to self-defense found in article I, § 1 of the California

Constitution (“the Self-Defense Claim”). Trial is scheduled to commence on September 19, 2006. 

Circuit City, however, requests that the Court certify for interlocutory appeal its Summary Judgment

Order (“the Motion”). In particular, Circuit City asserts that the Court’s ruling with respect to the

Self-Defense Claim involves a controlling question of law about which there is substantial basis for

difference of opinion, and interlocutory appeal will materially advance the termination of this

litigation. 

The Court determines that the Motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument,

pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing on the Motion scheduled for May 12,

2006, at 9:30 a.m., is VACATED. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED.1

Case 3:05-cv-01347-JCS Document 81 Filed 05/03/06 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

The decision to certify an order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is

committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514

U.S. 35, 47 (1995). Section 1292(b) authorizes the district court to certify an interlocutory appeal

when three requirements are met: 1) the opinion must involve a “controlling question of law;” 2) the

opinion offers “substantial ground for difference of opinion;” and 3) “an immediate appeal from the

order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In

addition, the Ninth Circuit has held that certification to file an interlocutory appeal should be granted

sparingly. United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 788 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1959). Thus, interlocutory

appeals generally should be allowed only where allowing an immediate appeal would avoid

protracted and expensive litigation. See Loritz v. CMT Blues, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1253 (citing

United States Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1966)).

First, while the remaining claim raises a difficult question of law, it is not an issue that has

resulted in a difference of opinion “among the courts,” that is, a conflict of authority. See Envtl.

Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6674 at *14 (N.D. Cal. 2004). 

Moreover, this case is not an extraordinary case in the sense that an interlocutory appeal

might avoid protracted and expensive litigation. To the contrary, discovery is completed and all that

remains is a trial on a single claim. An interlocutory appeal may itself greatly lengthen the case –

and multiply the proceedings necessary for its resolution. As the case now stands, there will be one

brief trial and a possible appeal thereafter. If an interlocutory appeal is granted, the prospect of two

possible appeals (one interlocutory, and one after a trial, if a trial is held) will greatly lengthen the

case and the burden on all parties and the courts.

The Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2006

______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01347-JCS Document 81 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2