Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-00602/USCOURTS-ca10-16-00602-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derek S. Casey
Petitioner
Amy Fellows Cline
Petitioner
Mary A. McDonald
Respondent
Triplett, Woolf & Garretson
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DEREK S. CASEY; AMY FELLOWS 

CLINE; TRIPLETT, WOOLF & 

GARRETSON, LLC, 

 Petitioners,

v.

MARY A. McDONALD, 

 Respondent.

No. 16-602

(D.C. No. 6:14-CV-01020-GEB)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on the Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which was filed by the attorneys and the law firm that formerly 

represented the defendants in the underlying district court case. The plaintiff, who is the 

respondent to the petition, filed an answer in opposition to the petition. The petitioners 

filed a Motion to File a Reply Memorandum, which was accompanied by a proposed 

reply.

As an initial matter, the petitioners’ motion to file a reply is granted. The reply 

shall be shown on the court’s docket as filed the date it was received.

After careful review of the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, we have 

determined that the petition should be denied. The decision whether to grant a petition to 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 25, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-602 Document: 01019627133 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 1 
2

appeal under § 1292(b) is purely discretionary. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Coopers & 

Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978) (noting that “[t]he appellate court may 

deny the [petition for permission to] appeal [pursuant to § 1292(b)] for any reason”). To 

convince this court to exercise its broad discretion on whether to accept their appeal, the 

petitioners grounded their petition primarily on their disagreement with the district 

court’s analysis of the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify them and resolution of that motion. 

We conclude, however, that the petitioners have not met their burden of persuading the 

court that truly exceptional circumstances justify departing from the general rule that 

appellate review must wait until after the entry of final judgment. Coopers & Lybrand, 

437 U.S. at 475 (“[E]ven if a district judge certifies [an] order under § 1292(b), the 

appellant still has the burden of persuading the court of appeals that exceptional 

circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review 

until after the entry of final judgment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, the petition for permission to appeal is denied.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-602 Document: 01019627133 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 2