Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01207-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANAL NAOOM dba L.T.M. AUTO

SALES; et al.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1207 H

(CAB)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’

NOTICE OF

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

AND CONFIRMING TRIAL

SCHEDULE REMAINS

UNCHANGED

vs.

SECURED ASSETS INCOME

FUNDS, an unknown entity; et al.,

Defendants.

SAIF, INC., a California corporation,

et al.,

Counter-Claimant,

 vs.

MANAL NAOOM dba L.T.M. AUTO

SALES; et al., 

Counter-Defendants.

On November 15, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of this

Court’s summary judgment order. (Doc. No. 196.) The Court is scheduled to hear oral

argument on the parties’ motions in limine on Monday, November 20, 2006, and trial

is scheduled to begin on November 21, 2006. As explained below, the Court’s

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 198 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

summary judgment order is not a final judgment, and the Court declines to certify this

interlocutory appeal. Further, Plaintiffs have not requested a stay of proceedings, and

in any event, the Court concludes that a stay would hinder the efficient resolution of this

suit. Accordingly, the trial and pretrial schedule remains unchanged.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs entry of judgment upon multiple

parties or claims:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an

express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such

determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and

liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is

subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating

all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because the Court did not make an express determination that

entry of judgment was appropriate, and because the Court did not direct entry of final

judgment, this Court’s summary judgment order is not a final judgment. 

Nevertheless, a district court may certify a non-final order for appeal if it

determines 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." 28 U.S.C. §

1292(b). Thus, to certify the orders, the court must find that they involve (1) a

controlling question of law, (2) that involves a substantial ground for difference of

opinion, (3) the resolution of which by the court of appeals will materially advance the

termination of the dispute. In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.

1982). "[T]he legislative history of 1292(b) indicates that this section was to be used

only in exceptional situations in which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid

protracted and expensive litigation." Id.

/ / / /

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 198 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

As the Ninth Circuit has explained:

Section 1292(b) was intended primarily as a means of expediting litigation by permitting appellate consideration during the early stages of litigation of legal questions which, if decided in favor of the appellant, would end the lawsuit. Examples of such questions are those relating to jurisdiction or a statute of limitations which the district court has decided in a manner

which keeps the litigation alive but which, if answered differently on appeal, would terminate the case.

United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1959). In this case, Plaintiffs

have not sought certification with this Court. Even if they had, however, the Court

concludes that termination of this dispute will be more expeditiously advanced by

allowing the litigation to continue in its ordinary course; Plaintiffs will be free to follow

normal appellate procedure, with a complete record, at the end of the litigation.

Accordingly, the Court declines to certify its summary judgment order for interlocutory

appeal.

Finally, Plaintiffs have not requested a stay in this case, nor would the Court

grant one. Further, § 1292(b) explicitly states 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); see also Wright, Miller,

& Cooper, 16 Federal Practice and Procedure § 3929 (“Absent a stay, the district court

may pursue the case through to final judgment.”). Accordingly, the pretrial and trial

schedule remains unchanged. The Court will hear oral argument on the parties’ motions

in limine on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 10:30 a.m., and trial will begin on

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 1:00 p.m.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 16, 2006

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 198 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

COPIES TO:

Richard S. Van Dyke

Van Dyke & Associates

Faraday Business Park

5741 Palmer Way, Suite B

Carlsbad, CA 92008

Richard P. Miller

Robert Reynolds

Law Offices of Richard P. Miller

2207 Garnet Avenue, Suite N

San Diego, CA 92109 

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 198 Filed 11/16/06 Page 4 of 4