Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02478/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02478-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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 - 06cv2478

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., formerly

known as U.S. BANCORP PIPER

JAFFRAY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06-CV-2478-H

(POR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO

CERTIFY SUMMARY

JUDGMENT ORDER

vs.

MARKETING GROUP, USA, INC.;

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN

CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR

EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE,

ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN

THE REAL PROPERTY

DESCRIBED IN THIS COMPLAINT

ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

INTEREST OR ANY CLOUD ON

PLAINTIFF’S INTEREST; DEAN

MILLER; LEE SAMANGO;

MICHAEL SHAMSHOUM; and

FORWARDSTEP CONSULTING,

INC.,

Defendants.

AND RELATED

COUNTERCLAIMS.

On July 12, 2007, the Court filed an order denying with prejudice in part and

without prejudice in part plaintiff Piper Jaffray & Co.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for

Case 3:06-cv-02478-JLS-POR Document 102 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 06cv2478

summary judgment. (Doc. No. 96.) On July 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed an ex parte

motion to amend the Court’s order to include a certification for immediate appeal.

(Doc. No. 98.) On July 24, the Court ordered defendants Marketing Group, USA, Inc.,

Lee Samango, Michael Shamshoum, and/or ForwardStep Consulting, Inc.

(“ForwardStep) (collectively “Defendants”) to file any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion

on or before August 8, 2007. On August 8, 2007, defendants Lee Samango and

ForwardStep filed an opposition, which was joined by Michael Shamshoum. (Doc.

Nos. 99-100.) 

The denial of a motion for summary judgment is generally an interlocutory order

from which no appeal is available until the entry of judgment following the trial on the

merits. See Hopkins v. City of Sierra Vista, Ariz., 931 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir. 1991).

An order denying a motion for summary judgment may be reviewed by permissive

interlocutory appeal, however, if a district court certifies that the order (1) involves a

controlling question of law, (2) as to which there is substantial ground for difference

of opinion, and (3) an immediate appeal may materially advance ultimate termination

of the litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Ninth Circuit has stated that section

1292(b) is to be applied sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and that the

“controlling question of law” requirement be interpreted in such a way to implement

this policy. See In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1027 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff requests the Court certify two issues, whether Samango and

ForwardStep are precluded from asserting and seeking discovery based upon an

unclean hands defense, and whether an issue of fact exists regarding Miller’s complete

equitable ownership of the property located at 12650 Carmel Country Road, Unit 11,

San Diego, California given Shamshoum’s answer to the complaint and his prior

declarations. The Court concludes that these are not controlling issues, but rather

collateral issues, especially since the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment on the issue of Samango and Forward Step’s unclean hands defense without

prejudice regarding Plaintiff’s ability to refile a similar motion after Samango has more

Case 3:06-cv-02478-JLS-POR Document 102 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 06cv2478

time for discovery. Cf. United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, (9th Cir. 1959)

(concluding that district court’s decision permitting discovery after denying claim of

privilege is not a controlling question of law permitting an interlocutory appeal

pursuant to § 1292(b)). Furthermore, the Court concludes that the determination of

these issues would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation

since other issues would have to be determined in order to resolve Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Court’s summary

judgment order to include a certification for immediate appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:06-cv-02478-JLS-POR Document 102 Filed 08/09/07 Page 3 of 3