### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A ugus t 26, 2004 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 13958

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 99 -022 82 -C V -A R -S DA NN Y MC F AR L I N, NE AL NI E L S E N, E L E AN OR D. NE WM AN , DI C K MAN L E Y, R O B E R T E . T A Y L O R , e t a l., P la in tif f s - A p p e lle e s , v ersu s CO N SECO SERV I CES, LLC, C O N S E C O H E A L T H I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , f. k. a. C api t ol A m er i ca n L i fe Insura nce C o m p a n y , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 26, 2004)Ho no ra bleRicha rd D. Cudahy, Unite d State s Circuit Judg efo r t

heSe venth

Circuit , * sitti ngby designation. 2 B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d C U D A H Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: O ne of the s t a tut orye xc e pt i ons t o the f i na l j udgm e ntrul e i s s e touti n 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 2(b). U nd erthatprov i si on , three thi ng s m usthapp en i n o rderfor a courtof appeal s t o h ave j uri sdi ct i on w here i tw ou l d n ototherw i se . A di stri ctcourt m ustce rt i fyi n w ri t i ng thaton e of i t s order s “ i nv ol ves acontrol l i ng qu es t i on of l aw as t o w hi ch there i s s ub st ant i al grou nd for di ff er ence of op i ni on and thatan i m m e di a t e appe a l f

r om the or de rm a y m a t e r i a l l y a dva nc e the ul t i m a t e t e r m i na t i on o f th e litig a tio n .” A p a r ty m u s t, w ith in te n d a y s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e r , ap p ly t o th e co u rto f ap p eal s fo r p erm i ssi o n t o ap p eal . A n d th e co u rto f ap p eal s m u st de c i de i n i t s di s c r e t i on t o e xe r c i s e i nt e r l oc ut ory r e vi e w . A l l thr e e of thos e thi ngs h ap p e n e d in th is c a s e . A courtof appeal s’ order grant i ng perm i ss i on for a n i nt er l ocut ory app ea l u n d e r§ 1 2 9 2 ( b ) is n o t irr e v o c ab le , h o w e v e r . I n o u rc o u r t, a t le a s t, th e d e c is io n to p e r m it a n in te r lo c u to ry ap p e a l u n d e rth is p r o v is io n is m a d e b y a m o tio n s p a n e l. L i ke a l l m ot i ons i ni t i a l l y rul e d upon by a m ot i ons pa ne l , i ti s s ubj e c tt o be i ng vaca t ed as i m prov i dent l y gra nt ed by the m er i t s panel t o w hi ch the ca se i s a ss i gn ed for deci si on . 11 th C i r. R . 27 -1(g); B urre l l v. B d. of T rust ee s of G a. M i l i t ary3

C o lle g e , 9 7 0 F .2 d 7 8 5 , 7 8 8 - 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . T h a t is w h a t w e a r e g o in g to d o in thi s c as e, because i tpres ent s at extbo ok exam pl e of w hen § 12 92 (b) di sc re t i on ary ju r is d ic tio n s h o u ld n o t b e e x e r c is e d . I. In 1 9 9 9 fi ft een p l ai n t i ffs fi l ed th i s l aw su i ti n fed eral d i stri ctco u rtag ai n st tw o set s o f d efen d an t s: (1 ) C o n seco , In c. , C o n seco H eal th , C o n seco S erv i ces, P er form ance M att er s A ss oci at es (P M A ), and C hri st op her W ea ver ( the C on se co de f e nda nt s ) ; a nd ( 2) M i ke F os t e r , D a vi d K i ng, C ons ol i da t e d M a r ke t i ng G r oup (C M G ), and S un coas tF ri ng e B enef i t s ( the C M G defe nd ant s) . T he pl ai nt i ff s w er e “e x e c u tiv e d ir e c to r s ” f

o rC ap ito l A m e r ic a n L if e I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y a t th e tim e it w as ac q u ired b y C o n se co , In c. in 1 9 9 7 . T h eir c laim s a ro se fr o m C o n se co , In c.’s pur c ha s e of

C api t ol A m e r i c a n, a nd C ons e c o H e a l th’ s s ubs e que ntc ons ol i da t i on of the pl a i nt i f

f s i nt o one l a r ge m a r ke t i ng or ga ni z a t i on. C api t ol A m e r i c a n s ol d s uppl e m e nt a l he a l th i ns ur a nc e thr ough door - t o- door m a r ke t i ng a nd t o e m pl oy e ra nd pa y r ol l gr oups . I tw a s s truc tur e d s o tha te xe c ut i ve d i rect o rs w o rk ed as i t s i n d ep en d en tco n tract o rs t o sel l i t s i n su ran ce p ro d u ct s. E xe c ut i ve di r e c t or s w e r e r e s pons i bl e f orrunni ng i ndi vi dua l m a r ke t i ng organi za t i on s ( IM O s) and recrui t i ng and tra i ni ng i nd ependentagent s. E ac h e x e c u tiv e d ir e c to re a rn e d a c o m m is s io n o n a ll th e p r o d u c ts s o ld b y h is I M O .4

T he arra ng em ent s betw ee n C api t ol A m er i ca n and i t s I M O s w er e gov erned by m a r ke t i ng a gr e e m e nt s . B e tw e e n 1986 a nd 1996 e a c h of the pl a i nt i f

f s s i gne d a m arket i ng agre em entw i th C api t ol A m er i ca n, on behal f of them se l ves a s i ndi vi dua l s a nd/ oron be ha l f of the i rI M O s . I n 1996, pl a i nt i f f s M c F a r l i n, N e w m a n, M anl ey , and N i el se n execut ed an agree m entw i th C api t ol A m er i ca n ent i t l ed “b u sin es s c o n ti n u atio n p lan .” T h at p lan allo w ed fo r c o n ti n u atio n o f a n IM O ’s bu si ness even aft erthe t erm i nat i on , re t i re m ent , or death o f the execut i ve di re ct or, a n d it r e q u ir e d c o m p lia n c e w ith a n o n - c o m p e te a g r e e m e n t w ith C ap ito l A m e r ic a n . I n 1996, C api t ol A m e r i c a n a nnounc e d tha ti tw a s goi ng t o be a c qui r e d by C o n seco , In c, a l arg e co rp o rat i o n th ato w n s a n u m b er o f i n su ran ce co m p an i es. D ur i ng the a c qui s i t i on, de f e nda ntC hr i s t ophe rW e a ve rw a s a n e xe c ut i ve a tC api t ol A m e r i c a n. H e w a s r e s pons i bl e f orke e pi ng c om m uni c a t i on ope n a m ong the m a n a g e m e n t o f

b o th c o m p a n ie s a n d C ap ito l A m e r ic a n ’s e x e c u tiv e d ir e c to r s . A ft er the ac qu i si t i on , C api t ol A m er i ca n b ec am e kno w n as C on se co H ea l th, and thi s new e n t i ty a s s u me d Cap i t o l A me r i c a n ’ s a g r e e me n t s w i th th e p l a i n t i f f s . W e a v e rb e c a me E xe c ut i ve V i c e P r e s i de ntof M a r ke t i ng a tC ons e c o H e a l th. S oo n aft erthe ac qu i si t i on , the C on se co defendant s began t o res tructure C o n s e c o He a l th ’ s m a r k e t i n g p l a n . We a v e rp r o p o s e d th a tm o s to f th e s m a l l e rI MOs b e b r o u g h t in to o n e la r g e I M O . C o n s e c o H e a lth f o llo w e d th a t p r o p o s a l,5

c o n s o lid a tin g a ll th e f

o r m e rC ap ito l A m e r ic a n I M O s w ith le s s th a n $ 2 m illio n in an n u al sal es i n t o o n e m ark et i n g o rg an i zat i o n . D efen d an tS u n co astF ri n g e B en efi t s, a v e ry s u c c e s s f

u l I M O f o rC ap ito l A m e r ic a n w h ic h w a s o w n e d b y d e f e n d a n ts F os t e ra nd K i ng, w a s r e na m e d C ons ol i da t e d M a r ke t i ng G r oup ( C M G ) , a nd b e tw e e n 1 0 0 a n d 2 0 0 o f th e s m a ll I M O s w e r e c o n s o lid a te d in to it. F os t e ra nd K i ng cont i nu ed t o o w n and op er at e C M G . S i x l ar ger I M O s di d rem ai n separ at e e nt i t i es u n d e rC o n s e c o H e a lth . A f te rth e C M G c o n s o lid a tio n , th e e x e c u tiv e d ir e c to r s r e c e iv e d le s s in c o m m is s io n s . U n d e rth e m a r k e tin g a g r e e m e n ts , C o n s e c o H e a lth w a s a llo w e d to c ha nge the pl a i nt i f

f s ’ c om m i s s i on s truc tur e s o l ong a s w r i tt e n not i c e w a s pr ovi de d, a nd i tha d be e n. A l l of

the pl a i nt i f

f s ha d be e n s e nta l e tt e ron J une 9, 1997, s t a t i ng thatthe com m i ss i on structure w ou l d b e c hang ed i n 3 0 d ay s a nd thatthe IM O s w er e bei ng consol i dat ed. A ft erthe consol i dat i on , al l the IM O s dea l tw i th C M G ra ther tha n di r e c t l y w i th C ons e c o H e a l th. W ea ver s t op ped w orki ng for C on se co S ervi ce s i n Jun e 199 8 and st art ed w orki ng for T L C N at i on al M arket i ng , Inc, w hi ch i s one of the si x IM O s thathad notbe e n c ons ol i da t e d w i th C M G . I n J une of 1999 C ons e c o, I nc . ( the pa r e ntof the C on se co com pani es ), bo ug htT L C and sever al other of these IM O s, and com bi ned the m unde rthe na m e P e r f or m a nc e M a tt e r s A s s oc i a t e s , I nc . ( P M A ) . T he m a r ke t i ng6

a gr e e m e nt s s t i l l r e m a i ne d i n e f f e c t . C M G w a s s ubs um e d unde rP M A , w hi c h now p e r f o rm s th e s a m e f

u n c t i o n C MG h a d b e e n p e r f o r m i n g . T h e f

o r m a t i o n o f

P MA w a s a nnounc e d i n a l e tt e rt o the e xe c ut i ve di r e c t or s of the a f f e c t e d I M O s , i nc l udi ng pl a i nt i f f s . C ha nge s i n c om m i s s i ons a nd hi e r a r c hi e s w e r e a l l ow e d unde rthe m ark et i n g ag reem en t s. II. T h e c o m p la in t a s s e r te d c la im s f o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t, u n

ju s t e n r ic h m e n t, t o r t i o u s i n t e r f

e r e n c e w i th c o n tr a c tu a l a n d b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s , f r a u d , RI CO vi ol a t i ons , a nd c ons pi r a c y a ga i ns tthe tw o s e t s of de f e nda nt s w e ha ve a l r e a dy d e s c r ib e d . T h e p la in tif

f s v o lu n ta r ily d is m is s e d th e irc la im s a g a in s t C o n s e c o , I n c . T he C ons e c o de f

e nda nt s a nd the C M G de f e nda nt s the n f

i l e d s e pa r a t e m ot i ons f

or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. O n M a y 27, 2003, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the C ons e c o de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entas t o the t ort i ou s i nt er fe re nce c l ai m agai nstC on se co H ea l th, and as t o the breac h o f c on tra ctcl ai m s a gai nstal l defe nd ant s other than C ons e c o H e a l th. I tde ni e d the C ons e c o de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nt as t o al l th e o th er cl ai m s ag ai n stth em . T h e co u rtal so d en i ed th e C M G d efen d an t s’ m o t i o n fo r su m m ary j u d g m en ti n i t s en t i rety.7

O n Jun e 19, 20 03 , the di stri ctcourton i t s ow n m ot i on ent er ed an order c e r tif y in g its M a y 2 7 , 2 0 0 3 o r d e rf o rap p e a l p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 ( b ) . In do i ng so, the courtfa i l ed t o speci fyw hati ttho ug htthe control l i ng qu es t i on of l aw tha tqua l i f

i e d f ori nt e r l oc ut ory appe a l w a s . B oth s e t s of de f e nda nt s f i l e d w i th us pe t i t i ons f

orpe r m i s s i on t o appe a l unde r§ 1292( b) , w hi c h di d s pe c i f y c ontr ol l i ng q u e s tio n s . E a c h p e titio n w a s p r e s e n te d to a d if f e r e n t m o tio n s p a n e l o f

th is C o u r t, and each panel ent er ed an order grant i ng the pet i t i on before i t . T he pl ai nt i ff s f i l ed a m ot i on t o v ac at e the orders perm i tt i ng the appeal , and thatm ot i on has bee n c a rr ie d w ith th e c a s e . III. S ect i o n 1 2 9 2 (b ) says th i s: W he n a di s tr i c tj udge , i n m a ki ng i n a c i vi l a c t i on a n or de rnot otherw i se appeal abl e und erthi s s ec t i on , shal l be of the op i ni on that s u c h o r d e rin v o lv e s a c o n tr o llin g q u e s tio n o f la w a s to w h ic h th e r e is s u b s ta n tia l g r o u n d f

o rd if f e r e n c e o f o p in io n a n d th a t a n im m e d ia te appe a l f r om the or de rm a y m a t e r i a l l y a dva nc e the ul t i m a t e t e r m i na t i on of the l i t i ga t i on, he s ha l l s o s t a t e i n w r i t i ng i n s uc h or de r . T he C our tof A ppe a l s w hi c h w oul d ha ve j ur i s di c t i on of a n appe a l of

s uc h a c t i on m a y the r e upon, i n i t s di s c r e t i on, pe r m i ta n appe a l t o be t a ke n f r om such order, i f app l i ca t i on i s m ade t o i tw i thi n t en days af t erthe entry o f th e o r d e r. . . . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 ( b ) . A s th a t la n g u a g e in d ic a te s , w h e th e rto p e r m it th is ap p e a l to go forw ar d i s nota quest i on of j uri sdi ct i on or po w er . In i t s order de ny i ng the m ot i ons f

ors um m a ry j udgm e ntthe di s tr i c tc our tc e r t i f i e d the m a tt e ra s r e qui r e d f or8

§ 1 2 9 2 ( b ) tr e a tm e n t, a n d w ith in te n d a y s th e d e f e n d a n ts f ile d ap p lic a tio n s w ith th is C o u rtfo r p erm i ssi o n t o ap p eal . T h ati s en o u g h t o g i v e u s d i scret i o n t o ex erci se ap p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n n o w in s te a d o f w a itin g u n til a f

te rf in a l ju d g m e n t. T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f

a i l ur e t o s pe c i f

y the c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on orque s t i ons of l aw i thad i n m i nd w hen cert i fy i ng thatthe ca se m ee t s the re qu i re m ent s of § 12 92 (b) i s afa ct or w e m ayconsi der i n d ec i di ng ho w t o exerci se ou r di sc re t i on ary pow e rt o r e vi e w . I tdoe s not , how e ve r , r e m ove ourpow e rof r e vi e w . U nde rthe st atu t e, “ ap p el l at e j u ri sd i ct i o n ap p l i es t o th e o rd er certi fi ed t o th e co u rto f ap p eal s, a nd i s nott i e d t o the pa r t i c ul a rque s t i on f or m ul a t e d by the di s tr i c tc our t . ” Y a m a ha M o to rC o rp ., U .S .A . v . C a lh o u n , 5 1 6 U .S . 1 9 9 , 2 0 5 , 1 1 6 S . C t. 6 1 9 , 6 2 3 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . A s a r e s ul t , “ the s c ope of appe l l a t e r e vi e w i s notl i m i t e d t o the pr e c i s e que s t i on ce rt i fi ed by the di stri ctcourtbecause the di stri ctcourt ’ s order , no tthe ce rt i fi ed qu es t i on , i s broug htbefore the court . ” A l dri dg e v. L i l y- T ul i p, Inc. S al ary R et i re m entP l an B enef

i t s C om m i tt ee , 40 F . 3d 12 02 , 12 07 (11th C i r. 19 94 ) ( per curi am ). In fa ct , w e have the po w ert o “ re vi ew an ent i re order, ei ther t o con si der a q u e s tio n d if

f e r e n t f r o m th e o n e c e r tif

ie d a s c o n tr o llin g o rto d e c id e th e c a s e d e s p ite the l a c k of

a ny i de nt i f

i e d c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on. ” Y a m a ha M ot or , 516 U . S . a t205, 1 1 6 S . C t. a t 6 2 3 .9

P ow eri s one thi ng , the prud entexer ci se of i ti s a no ther. T hi s C ou rthas d eci d ed a l arg e n u m b er o f i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal s u n d er § 1 2 9 2 (b ) o v er th e years, and h as decl i ned t o d ec i de a l ar ge nu m ber a s w el l . W e have not , ho w ever , previ ou sl y s etou tany genera l pri nci pl es abou tw hen w e s ho ul d exerci se ou r di s c r e t i ona ry a uthor i ty unde rthi s i m por t a nts t a tut e . R e a l i z i ng tha tw e c a nnot constra i n the po w erof other panel s t o exerci se thei r § 12 92 (b) di sc re t i on as they se e f i ti n the ca se s thatcom e bef ore them , w e s t i l l thi nk i tm i gh tbe hel pful t o o ff er ourvi e w s on the s ubj e c t . B e s i de s , the pa r t i e s i n thi s c a s e , a nd pa r t i c ul a r l y the de f e nda nt s w hos e e f

f or t s t o ge tthe de ni a l of

the i rm ot i ons f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nt r e lie f r e v ie w e d a r e b e in g r e

je c te d , m a y ap p r e c ia te a n e x p la n a tio n . T o unde r s t a nd the appl i c abl e s t a nda r ds f or§ 1292( b) appe a l s , w e w i l l l ook t o the t e xtof

§ 1292( b) i n l i ghtof

i t s tr e a tm e nti n the c a s e l a w of thi s c i r c ui ta nd othe r s . B e f

or e doi ng s o, i ti s he l pf

ul t o unde r s t a nd how tha ts t a tut ory pr ovi s i on c a m e ab o u t. A. P a r a gr aph ( b) w a s a dde d t o § 1292 on S e pt e m be r2, 1958, H . R . 6238, P ub. L . N o. 85- 919, 72 S t a t . 1770. I tha s be e n a m e nde d i n m i norw a y s s i nc e the n, but the c or e r e qui r e m e nttha tthe or de rt o be appe a l e d “ i nvol ve [ ] a c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on of l aw as t o w hi ch there i s s ub st ant i al grou nd for di ff er ence of op i ni on , ” a nd that10

a n i m m e di a t e appe a l “ m a y m a t e r i a l l y a dva nc e the ul t i m a t e t e r m i na t i on of the litig a tio n ” h a s r e m a in e d u n c h a n g e d . T he a ddi t i on of

§ 1292( b) w a s pr om pt e d by a pr opos a l t o C ongr e s s f r om the J udi c i a l C onf

e r e nc e of the U ni t e d S t a t e s C our t s . 1958 U . S . C . C . A . N . 5258. T he s pe c i f i c s of tha tpr opos a l or i gi na t e d f r om a c om m i tt e e of

j udge s appoi nt e d by the C h ief J u stice to stu d y th e m atter o f in terlo cu to ry ap p ea ls. Id . T h e c o m m ittee’s rep o rtw as ap p ro v ed b y th e Ju d i ci al C o n feren ce an d tran sm i tt ed t o C o n g ress, w here i tw as re prod uced i n the re po rt s of the H ou se and S enat e J ud i ci ary C om m i tt ee s w hen they a ct ed fa vo rabl y on the l egi sl at i on . Id. at52 55 . T he re po rt of the J udi c i a l C onf

e r e nc e c om m i tt e e i s pa r t i c ul a r l y pe r s ua s i ve i n r e ga r d t o the i nt entbehi nd the prov i si on , because C on gres s e nact ed the re po rt ’ s propo se d l a ngua ge ve rba t i m . T he r e por tc ont a i ne d thi s i m por t a ntpa s s a ge e m pha s i z i ng the lim ite d s c o p e o f

th e p r o p o s a l: [ T ] he appe a l f

r om i nt e r l oc ut ory or de r s thus pr ovi de d s houl d a nd w i l l be us e d onl y i n e xc e pt i ona l c a s e s w he r e a de c i s i on of the appe a l m a y a voi d pr otr a c t e d a nd e xpe ns i ve l i t i ga t i on, a s i n a nt i trus ta nd s i m i l a rpr otr a c t e d c a s e s , w he r e a que s t i on w hi c h w oul d be di s pos i t i ve of the l i t i ga t i on i s r a i s e d a n d th e r e is s e r io u s d o u b t a s to h o w it s h o u ld b e d e c id e d , a s in th e r e c e n t c a s e o f A u s tr ia n v . W illia m s , [ 1 9 8 F .2 d 6 9 7 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 5 2 ) .] I t is n o t thoughttha tdi s tr i c tj udge s w oul d gr a ntthe c e r t i f i c a t e i n or di na ry l i t i ga t i on w hi c h c oul d othe rw i s e be pr om pt l y di s pos e d of ortha tm e r e que s t i on a s t o th e c o rr e c tn e s s o f

th e ru lin g w o u ld p r o m p t th e g r a n tin g o f th e c e r tif

ic a te . T he ri gh tof appeal gi ven b y the am endat ory s t atut e i s l i m i t ed bo th b y the re qu i re m entof the ce rt i fi ca t e of the tri al j ud ge, w ho i s f am i l i arw i th the l i t i ga t i on a nd w i l l notbe di s pos e d t o c ount e na nc e di l a t ory t a c t i c s , a nd by theIn Austrian v. Willi ams, the ca se cited in the c ommitt ee’ s repor t, a cor poration’s 1 tr us te e s sue d it s dire c tor s, of fi c ers , a nd princ ipal stoc kh older in f e deral c ourt

fo r b re a c h o f t

he ir fiduciar y duties to the corporation. 198 F.2d at 699. Defendants raise d a state la w statute of limit ations defense. I d. Instead of a pplying that statute of limitations as it would have be en applied in state c ourt, the district court read into it a fe deral equitable rulethat tolled the running duringthe period in which the wrong doers c ontrolled the cor poration. On that ba sis, the district court he ld that the claim was not ba rre d. I d. at 700. The trial resulted in judgment ag ainst two of the de fenda

nts, who appealed. I d. at 699. The Sec ond Circuit reversed, holdingthat a fe deral court must apply

a state statute of

limit ations in acc ordanc e with state law , and doingthat meant the plaintiffs’ c laims werebarred. Id. at 700-01. I f an a ppeal under § 1292(b) had been available , the statute of limitations question could have been resolved e arlier , preventing the nece ssity of a trial. 11 r e s t i ng of

f i na l di s c r e t i on i n the m a tt e ri n the c our tof appe a l s , w hi c h w i l l not p e r m it its d o c k e t to b e c r o w d e d w ith p ie c e m e a l o rm in o rlitig a tio n . I d. a t5260- 61. S e e a l s o i d. a t5259 ( “ [ T ] oo gr e a tf r e e dom i n t a ki ng appe a l s f r om 1 orders of the di stri ctcourtpri or t o the fi nal j ud gm ent , ‘ pi ec em ea l appeal s’ as they ar e c al l ed, m aym ake f

or del ayand i ncre as e the expense of the l i t i gat i on . ”) . T he S enat e J ud i ci ary C om m i tt ee R eport , S . R ep. N o. 24 24 (195 8), offe rs th i s i n si g h ti n t o th e typ e o f si tu at i o n C o n g ress i n t en d ed § 1 2 9 2 (b ) t o ad d ress: [ I ] n a r e c e ntc a s e , a m ot i on t o di s m i s s f orw a ntof

j ur i s di c t i on w a s f

i l e d i n the di stri ctcourtea rl y i n the proceedi ng s. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on and the m att erthen p roce eded t o tri al . T he di sposi t i on of thatca se to o k a lm o s t 8 m o n th s . U p o n f in a l o r d e rth e c a s e w a s ap p e a le d a n d th e c o u r t of appe a l s de t e r m i ne d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notha ve j ur i s di c t i on a nd ent er ed an order ac cordi ng l y. H ad thi s l egi sl at i on been i n eff ec tatthatt i m e, the di s tr i c tj udge c oul d ha ve s t a t e d i n w r i t i ng hi s opi ni on tha tthe m ot i on w a s c ontr ol l i ng a nd the de f e nda ntc oul d the r e upon ha ve m a de appl i c a t i on t o the courtof appeal s f

or a r evi ew of the order denyi ng the m ot i on . H ad the courtof appeal s e nt ert ai ned such a m ot i on and reac hed the concl usi on w hi ch it u ltim a te ly d id , it w o u ld h a v e r e s u lte d in a s a v in g o f th e tim e o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d c o n s id e r ab le e x p e n s e o n th e p a r t o f th e litig a n ts .12

19 58 U . S . C . C . A . N . 52 56 . T he sa m e r eportgi ves a s a no ther e xam pl e of w hen an i nt er l ocut ory app ea l m i gh tbe approp ri at e the deni al of a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss an ant i trustac t i on on st atut e of l i m i t at i on s groun ds. Itm i gh tbe go od t o l etthat q u est i o n b e rev i ew ed b efo re fi n al j u d g m en t , th e rep o rtex p l ai n s, b ecau se “[ d ]is p o s itio n o f

a n titru s t c a s e s m a y ta k e c o n s id e r ab le tim e , y e t u p o n ap p e a l . . . the c our tof

appe a l s m a y w e l l de t e r m i ne tha tthe s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons ha d run a nd f o rth a tr e a s o n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o th a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n . ” I d . a t5 2 5 6 . T h o s e two e xa m pl e s ha ve i n c om m on tha tthe y i nvol ve pot e nt i a l l y di s pos i t i ve l e ga l que s t i ons c o lla te r a l to th e m e r its th a t m ig h t r e n d e ru n n e c e s s a ry a le n g th y tr ia l. T h a t is la r g e ly tru e a s w e ll o f

th e o n ly o th e re x a m p le g iv e n in th e S e n a te r e p o r t, w h ic h is th e ru lin g u p o n a m o tio n to jo in a th ir d p a r ty d e f e n d a n t. I d . B. T he e s s e nt i a l r e qui r e m e nt s f ora ny § 1292( b) appe a l , w hi c h a r e s e touti n the s t a tut e i t s e l f

, pr e s e ntus w i th thr e e que s t i ons : ( 1) W ha ti s a “ c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on of l a w ? ” ; ( 2) w ha ti s a “ s ubs t a nt i a l gr ound f ordi f f e r e nc e of opi ni on? ” ; a nd ( 3) w ha tdoe s i tm e a n f

ora n appe a l t o “ m a t e r i a l l y a dva nc e the ul t i m a t e t e r m i na t i on of the l i t i gat i on ? ” T o answ erthese i nq ui ri es , w e l oo k t o the ca se l aw of thi s a nd other ci rcu i t s, i n l i g h to f w h atw e h av e al read y l earn ed fro m th e l eg i sl at i v e h i st o ry. 1.Fifth Circuit dec isions rendere d prior to the closeof business on September 30, 1981 1 arebindingpre c e dent o n this C ourt . Se eB onner v . City of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir.1981) (en ba

nc). 13 W e begi n w i th the re qu i re m entthat“ a c on trol l i ng qu es t i on of l aw ” be a t i s s u e . T h e o l d F i f

th C i r c u i th a s r e c o g n i z e d a d i s t i n c t i o n b e twe e n a q u e s t i o n o f l a w, w hi c h w i l l s a t i s f

y § 1292( b) , a nd “ a que s t i on of f a c torm a tt e rf

orthe di s c r e t i on of the tri al court . ” G arner v. W ol fi nb ar ger, 43 0 F . 2d 10 93 , 10 96 -97 (5th C i r. 19 70 ); 1 s e e a ls o C la r k - D ie tz & A s s o c .- E n g ’r s . v . B a s ic C o n s tr . C o ., 7 0 2 F .2 d 6 7 , 6 9 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) ( d e n y in g § 1 2 9 2 ( b ) p e titio n w h e r e q u e s tio n s “ap p e a rto b e m e r e ly f a c tre vi ew qu es t i on s” ). T hi s di st i nct i on betw ee n l egal and factual i nq ui ri es ar i se s f r e q u e n tly in a tte m p ts to ap p e a l in te r lo c u to r ily th e d e n ia l o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. S e e H a rr i s c om S ve ns ka A B v. H a rr i s C orp. , 947 F . 2d 627, 631 ( 2d C i r . 1991) (“ W h ere, as h ere, th e co n tro l l i n g i ssu es are q u est i o n s o f fact , o r, m o re p reci sel y, que s t i ons a s t o w he the rge nui ne i s s ue s of m a t e r i a l f

a c tr e m a i n t o be tr i e d, the f e de r a l s c he m e doe s notpr ovi de f ora n i m m e di a t e appe a l . . . . ” ) ; C happe l l & C o. v. F ra nk el , 36 7 F . 2d 19 7, 20 0 n . 4 (2d C i r. 19 66 ) ( en banc) (“ Iti s dou bt ful w hether th e d en i al o f su m m ary j u d g m en tw h en th e ap p l i cab l e l aw i s cl ear b u tth ere i s a genu i ne i ss ue as t o a m at er i al fa ctca n p roperl y be c ert i fi ed un der s ec t i on 12 92 (b) . . . .” ) .14

I n A hr e nhol z v. B oa r d of T rus t e e s of

the U ni ve r s i ty of

I l l i noi s , 219 F . 3d 674 ( 7th C i r . 2000) , the S e ve nth C i r c ui tf oc us e d i n s om e de t a i l on the ty pe of que s t i ons appr opr i a t e f

or§ 1292( b) appe a l . I tc onc l ude d tha t“ ‘ que s t i on of l a w ’ a s us e d i n § 12 92 (b) has re fe re nce t o a qu es t i on of the m ea ni ng of a s t atut ory or c on st i tut i on al p r o v is io n , r e g u la tio n , o rc o m m o n la w d o c tr in e r a th e rth a n to w h e th e rth e p a r ty op po si ng sum m ary j ud gm enthad rai se d a genu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ct . ” I d. at 6 7 6 . T h e te r m “q u e s tio n o f la w ” d o e s n o t m e a n th e ap p lic a tio n o f s e ttle d la w to f a c t . I d. I tdoe s notm e a n a ny que s t i on the de c i s i on of w hi c h r e qui r e s r oot i ng th r o u g h th e r e c o r d in s e a r c h o f th e f a c ts o ro f g e n u in e is s u e s o f

f a c t. S e e id . Inst ea d, w hatthe fr am er s of § 12 92 (b) had i n m i nd i s m ore of a n abstra ctl egal i ss ue or w hatm i gh tbe ca l l ed on e of “ pu re ” l aw , m att er s the courtof appeal s “ ca n de c i de qui c kl y a nd c l e a nl y w i thoutha vi ng t o s tudy the r e c or d. ” I d. a t677. C ons i de r , f

ore xa m pl e , A m os v. G l y nn C ounty B oa r d of T a x A s s e s s or s , 347 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d th e u n p u b lis h e d o r d e rp r e v io u s ly is s u e d in th atcase w h i ch th e o p i n i o n d escri b es. In th ato rd er w e h ad d en i ed a co u n ty’ s § 1 2 9 2 (b ) p et i t i o n t o ap p eal fro m th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss a const i tut i on al chal l enge t o the prop erty t ax as se ss m entm ea sure s use d b y that c ounty . I d. a t1254. W e e xpl a i ne d tha tw e ha d de ni e d the pe t i t i on be c a us e the de t e r m i na t i on of

w he the rthe l e ga l pr oc e s s of the s t a t e w a s “ pl a i n, s pe e dy , a nd15

e f f i c i e nt , ” w hi c h c oul d de t e r m i ne the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on a nd di s pos e of the c a s e , w a s to o f

a c t- in te n s iv e a n in q u iry f o rin te r lo c u to ry r e v ie w . I d . a t 1 2 5 4 . 2. A s f o rth e “s u b s ta n tia l g r o u n d f o rd if f e r e n c e o f o p in io n ” r e q u ir e m e n t, w e ha ve he l d tha ta que s t i on of l a w a s t o w hi c h w e a r e i n “ c om pl e t e a nd une qui voc a l ” a gr e e m e ntw i th the di s tr i c tc our ti s nota pr ope rone f or§ 1292( b) re vi ew . B urre l l , 97 0 F . 2d at78 8-89 . A l tho ug h w e tho ug htthatthe qu es t i on i n that appe a l m e tthe c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on of l a w r e qui r e m e nt , w e thoughtthe r e s ol ut i on of i ts o c l e a rtha tthe “ s ubs t a nt i a l gr ound f ordi f f e r e nc e of opi ni on” r e qui r e m e nt c o u ld n o t b e m e t. 9 7 0 F .2 d a t 7 8 8 - 8 9 . 3. F i na l l y , the t e xtof

§ 1292( b) r e qui r e s tha tr e s ol ut i on of a “ c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on of

l a w . . . m a y m a t e r i a l l y a dva nc e the ul t i m a t e t e r m i na t i on of the l i t i ga t i on. ” 28 U . S . C . § 1292( b) . T hi s i s nota di f f i c ul tr e qui r e m e ntt o unde r s t a nd. Itm ea ns thatre sol ut i on of a c on trol l i ng l egal qu es t i on w ou l d serve t o avo i d a tri al or otherw i se subst ant i al l y s ho rt en the l i t i gat i on . S ee general l y 16 C harl es A l an W ri gh t , etal . , F eder al P ra ct i ce & P roce du re §3 93 0 at43 2 (2d ed. 19 96 ); se e a l so In r e V i r gi ni a E l e c . & P ow e rC o. , 539 F . 2d 357, 364 ( 4th C i r . 1976) ( § 1292( b) appe a l appr opr i a t e w he r e r e s ol ut i on of c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on c oul d pr e ve nt16

s ubs t a nt i a l de l a y ) ; U . S . F i de l i ty & G ua r . C o. v. T hom a s S ol ve ntC o. , 683 F . S upp. 1139, 1176 ( W . D . M i c h. 1988) ( § 1292( b) appe a l appr opr i a t e w he r e r e s ol ut i on of control l i ng qu es t i on s c ou l d sho rt en the t i m e, ef fort , and exp ense of the l i t i gat i on ); A s hm or e v. N or the a s tP e tr ol D i v. , 855 F . S upp. 438, 440 ( D . M e . 1994) ( § 1292( b) appeal i napp ropri at e w here the sa m e part i es and i ss ues w ou l d rem ai n i n d i stri ct courtre gardl es s of r es ol ut i on of i ss ues on app ea l ). C. T o s um m a r i z e , § 1292( b) appe a l s w e r e i nt e nde d, a nd s houl d be r e s e r ve d, f or s i tua t i ons i n w hi c h the c our tof appe a l s c a n rul e on a pur e , c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on of l a w w i thoutha vi ng t o de l ve be y ond the s ur f a c e of the r e c or d i n or de rt o de t e r m i ne the f a c t s . S e e , e . g. , A l l apa tt a h S e r vs . , I nc . v. E xxon C orp. , 333 F . 3d 1248, 1252- 53 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( grant i ng § 1 29 2(b) re vi ew of w hether di stri ctcourthas j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er cl ass m em b ers w h o d o n o tsat i sfy th e am o u n ti n co n tro v ersy re qu i re m ent , and w hether f ol l ow i ng a j ury ver di cti n favor of the cl as s the di stri ct c our ts houl d ha ve a w a r de d a ggr e ga t e da m a ge s t o the c l a s s ) ; T uc ke rv. F e a rn, 333 F . 3d 12 16 , 12 18 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( grant i ng § 1 29 2(b) re vi ew of w hether a n o n d e p e n d e n t p a r e n t m a y r e c o v e rlo s s o f s o c ie ty d a m a g e s f

o rth e w r o n g f

u l d e a th of hi s m i norc hi l d unde rge ne r a l m a r i t i m e l a w ) ; L ove v. D e l t a A i rL i ne s , 310 F . 3d 13 47 , 13 51 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( grant i ng § 1 29 2(b) re vi ew of w hether the A i r C arri er17

A cc es s A ctof 19 86 i m pl i es a pri vat e r i gh tof ac t i on , and i f s o w hatre m edi es ar e a va i l abl e t o pr i va t e l i t i ga nt s ) . T he a nt i the s i s of a pr ope r§ 1292( b) appe a l i s one thatturns on w hether there i s agenu i ne i ss ue of fa ctor w hether the di stri ctcourt prop er l y app l i ed se tt l ed l aw t o the fa ct s or e vi dence of a part i cul arca se . In d e te r m in in g w h e th e rto g r a n t r e v ie w , w e s h o u ld a s k if th e r e is s u b s ta n tia l d is p u te ab o u t th e c o rr e c tn e s s o f a n yo f th e p u r e la w p r e m is e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c tu a lly appl i ed i n i t s r ea soni ng l ea di ng t o the order s ou gh tt o b e app ea l ed. T he l egal que s t i on m us tbe s t a t e d a ta hi gh e nough l e ve l of abs tr a c t i on t o l i f

tthe que s t i on out of the det ai l s of the evi dence or fa ct s of apart i cul arca se and g i ve i tgeneral r e l e va nc e t o othe rc a s e s i n the s a m e a r e a of l a w . A nd the a ns w e rt o tha tque s t i on m ustsubst ant i al l y r educe the am ou ntof l i t i gat i on l ef ti n the ca se . E ven w hen al l of tho se fa ct ors a re pres ent , the courtof appeal s has di s c r e t i on t o turn dow n a § 1292( b) appe a l . A nd w e w i l l s om e t i m e s do s o. T he pr ope rdi vi s i on of

l aborbe tw e e n the di s tr i c tc our t s a nd the c our tof appe a l s a nd the ef fi ci encyof j ud i ci al re sol ut i on of ca se s a re prot ec t ed by the fi nal j ud gm entrul e, an d are th reat en ed b y t o o ex p an si v e u se o f th e § 1 2 9 2 (b ) ex cep t i o n t o i t . B ecau se pe r m i tt i ng pi e c e m e a l appe a l s i s ba d pol i c y , pe r m i tt i ng l i be r a l us e of § 1292( b) i nt e r l oc ut ory appe a l s i s ba d pol i c y . W i th the s e thought s i n m i nd, w e e xa m i ne the18

qu es t i on s w hi ch the defendant s i n thi s c as e s etforth i n thei r pet i t i on s a s

“ control l i ng qu es t i on s of l aw . ” I V. A. T h e f ir s t p r o p o s e d q u e s tio n o f la w th a t th e C M G d e f

e n d a n ts s e t o u t in th e ir p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s : “ Wh e th e rth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te rr e d i n d e n y i n g [ th e C MG defe nd ant s’ ] M ot i on for S um m ary Jud gm entby i gn ori ng un am bi gu ou s c on tra ctual pr ovi s i ons gove rni ng the r e l a t i ons hi p of the pa r t i e s , c ontr a ry t o c ontr ol l i ng A l abam a l aw ? ” T h i s i ssu e st em s fro m th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f th e C M G d efen d an t s’ m o tio n s f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e p la in tif f s ’ c la im s f

o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t, b o th as t o th e m ark et i n g ag reem en t s an d th e b u si n ess co n t i n u at i o n p l an s. A s t o the m arket i ng agre em ent s, the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatgenu i ne i ss ues of m at er i al f a c tpr e c l ude d s um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o w he the rbr e a c he s ha d oc c urr e d. A s t o the bus i ne s s c ont i nua t i on pl a ns , i tc onc l ude d tha tpl a i nt i f f s ha d “ pr e s e nt e d s uf

f i c i e nt e v id e n c e to c r e a te a ju ry q u e s tio n . . . f o rb r e a c h o f

th e b u s in e s s c o n tin u a tio n p la n .” T he di stri ctcourtno t ed thatthe pl ai nt i ff s “ m ai nt ai n thatC on se co H ea l th h as br e a c he d the e xpr e s s t e r m s of the bus i ne s s c ont i nua t i on pl a n by r e m ovi ng gr oups ‘tie d ’ to th e irI M O s in b r e a c h o f th e ‘g o o d f

a ith ’ p r o v is io n .”19

T he C M G defe nd ant s a rgue thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of sum m ary j udgm e nton the br e a c h c l a i m s i m pl i c i t l y c ont a i ns a hol di ng tha tthe pl a i nt i f f s ha ve som e s ortof “ l egal i nt er es t ” i n thei r pol i cy ho l ders . T hey a ss ertthatan agentca n a c q u ir e a le g a l in te r e s t in its p o lic y h o ld e r s o n ly b y a n e x p lic it c o n tr a c tu a l g r a n t. J oe C oope r& A s s oc . , I nc . v. C e ntr a l L i f e A s s ur a nc e C o. , 614 S o. 2d 982, 988 ( A l a . 1992) . B ut , s a y the C M G de f e nda nt s , ne i the rthe m a r ke t i ng a gr e e m e nt s nor th e b u s in e s s c o n tin u a tio n p la n s c o n ta in e d s u c h a n e x p lic it g r a n t. P l a i nt i f f s do notdi s put e the rul e s of l a w the C M G de f

e nda nt s r e l y upon. I n s te a d , th e y m a in ta in th a t th e y a r e n o t c la im in g a r ig h t to a “le g a l in te r e s t” in p o lic y h o ld e r s o ra n y o n e e ls e . T h e y a lle g e d in th e irc o m p la in t th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts b r e a c h e d th e e x p r e s s a n d im p lie d p r o v is io n s o f th e m a r k e tin g a g r e e m e n t w ith p la in tif f s , a n d th e b u s in e s s c o n tin u a tio n p la n , in c lu d in g th e e x p r e s s g o o d f a ith r e q u ir e m e n t. T he pl ai nt i ff

s a re corr ec ti n thei r c hara ct er i za t i on of the i ss ues. T he di stri ct c our t ’ s de ni a l of

s um m a ry j udgm e nton the br e a c h c l a i m s w a s notba s e d upon w h e th e rp la in tif

f s h a d a “le g a l in te r e s t” in th e irp o lic y h o ld e r s . I n s te a d , th e c o u r t h e ld th a t g e n u in e is s u e s o f f a c t r e m a in e da s to th e p la in tif f s ’ th e o ry th a t d efen d an t s h ad b reach ed th e m ark et i n g ag reem en t s an d th e p l an s. D efen d an t s’ sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on s do n otturn o n w hether the pl ai nt i ff s have a“ l egal20

in te r e s t” in th e irp o lic y h o ld e r s , w h ic h is th e q u e s tio n th e C M G d e f e n d a n ts pr e s e nt e d a s “ a c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on of l a w a s t o w hi c h the r e i s s ubs t a nt i a l gr ound for di ff er ence of op i ni on . ” T he di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on the breac h o f c on tra ctcl ai m s c am e dow n t o an appl i c a t i on of

the f a c t s t o the t e r m s of

the c ontr a c t . T he r e i s no r e a l di s a gr e e m e nt abouta pur e l a w pr e m i s e he r e . T he s t a t e m e ntof l a w de f e nda nt s a s s e r ta s the corr ec ti nt erpret at i on of the control l i ng qu es t i on i s noti ncon si st entw i th the di stri ct c o u r t’s r e a s o n in g . I t f

o llo w s th a t th is is n o t a“c o n tr o llin g q u e s tio n o f la w a s to w h ic h th e r e is s u b s ta n tia l g r o u n d f o rd if f e r e n c e o f o p in io n ,” a n d th e r e f

o r e n o t a p r o p e rb a s is o n w h ic h to p e r m it a§ 1 2 9 2 ( b ) ap p e a l. B. T he s e c ond que s t i on the C M G de f e nda nt s s ugge s t e d i n the i rpe t i t i on f or rev i ew i s: “ W h eth er th e d i stri ctco u rterred i n d en yi n g [th e C M G d efen d an t s] M ot i on for S um m ary Jud gm ent[on the t ort i ou s i nt er fe re nce c l ai m ] by fi nd i ng that F os t e ra nd K i ng w e r e ‘ s tr a nge r s ’ t o the r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n [ the pl a i nt i f f s ] a nd th e i rg r o u p s , c o n tr a ry t o c o n tr o l l i n g Al ab a mal a w?” T o est ab l i sh a cl ai m fo r t o rt i o u s i n t erferen ce w i th co n tractu al o r b u si n ess rel at i o n s, a p l ai n t i ff m u stp ro v e: “ 1 ) th e ex i st en ce o f a co n tracto r b u si n ess r e l a t i on; 2) the de f

e nda nt ’ s know l e dge of

the c ontr a c torbus i ne s s r e l a t i on; 3)21

i nt e nt i ona l i nt e r f

e r e nc e by the de f

e nda ntw i th the c ontr a c torbus i ne s s r e l a t i on; 4) the abs e nc e of

j us t i f i c a t i on f orthe de f

e nda nt ’ s i nt e r f

e r e nc e ; a nd 5) da m a ge t o the pl a i nt i f f a s a r e s ul tof

the i nt e r f

e r e nc e . ” E x pa r t e A w tr e y R e a l ty C o. , 827 S o. 2d 1 0 4 , 1 0 8 - 0 9 ( A la . 2 0 0 1 ) . I n a d d itio n to th o s e f

iv e f a c to r s , “th e f

a c t th a t ad e f

e n d a n t is n o t ap a r ty to the re l at i on shi p i s a n el em entof the pl ai nt i ff’ s t ort i ou s- i nt er fe re nce c l ai m . ” B e llS o u th M o b ility , I n c . v . C e llu lin k , I n c ., 8 1 4 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 , 2 1 2 ( A la . 2 0 0 1 ) . T he r e f or e , “ [ a ] f t e rpr ovi ng the e xi s t e nc e of a c ontr a c t , i ti s e s s e nt i a l t o a c l a i m of t or t i ous i nt e r f

e r e nc e w i th c ontr a c tua l r e l a t i ons tha tthe pl a i nt i f f e s t abl i s h tha tthe de f e nda nti s a ‘ thi r d pa r ty , ’ i . e . , a ‘ s tr a nge r ’ t o the c ontr a c tw i th w hi c h the d e f e n d a n t a lle g e d ly in te r f

e r e d .” I d . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d c onc l ude tha tC ons e c o H e a l th w a s nota s tr a nge rt o the bu si ness re l at i on shi ps pl ai nt i ff s had w i th thei r a gent s a nd cust om er s, and g ra nt ed C o n seco H eal th su m m ary j u d g m en to n th e t o rt i o u s i n t erferen ce cl ai m s. T he d i s tr i c tc o u r th e l d , h o we v e r , th a tWe a v e r , C o n s e c o S e r v i c e s , F o s t e r , Ki n g , C MG, a nd S unC oa s tw e r e a l l s tr a nge r s t o pl a i nt i f f s ’ bus i ne s s r e l a t i ons , a nd f ortha tr e a s on d e n ie d th e m s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T he C M G de f e nda nt s a r gue t o us tha tF os t e ra nd K i n g –w h o o w n e d a n d o p e r a t e d C ap i t o l A m e r i c a n ’ s v e ry s u c c e s s f u l I MO S unc oa s tF r i nge B e ne f

i t s , a nd c ont i nue d t o ope r a t e i tw he n i tbe c a m e C M G a nd the22

sm al l er IM O s w ere co n so l i d at ed u n d er i t–w ere p art i es t o th e p l ai n t i ffs’ b u si n ess r e l a t i ons hi ps , nots tr a nge r s , a nd thus tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o gr a nt th e m s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I n rul i ng on the t or t i ous i nt e r f e r e nc e c l a i m , the di s tr i c tc our tr e c ount e d the l a w aboutw he n a pa r ty i s a “ s tr a nge r ” t o ac ontr a c t . T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n w e nt o n to f in d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts o th e rth a n C o n s e c o H e a lth –w h o s e c o n tr a c ts w ith p la in tif f s a c tu a lly g a v e r is e to p la in tif f s ’ c o n tr a c ts a n d b u s in e s s r e la tio n s w ith th e ir a ge nt s a nd c us t om e r s – w e r e notpa r t i e s t o the pl a i nt i f f s ’ bus i ne s s r e l a t i ons hi ps s im p ly b e c a u s e th e y th e m s e lv e s h a v e c o n tr a c tu a l o rb u s in e s s r e la tio n s w ith C ons e c o H e a l th. T he C M G de f

e nda nt s a r gue tha tthe que s t i on of w ho i s a “ s tr a nge r ” f

or to r tio u s in te r f

e r e n c e p u rp o s e s is a “c o n tr o llin g q u e s tio n o f la w a s to w h ic h th e r e is s u b s ta n tia l g r o u n d f

o rd if f e r e n c e o f o p in io n .” T hey a rgue thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d in its ap p lic a tio n o f th e la w b e c a u s e o f

th e d o c tr in e o f

tr ip a r tite r e la tio n s h ip s . S ee C ol on i al B ank v . P att er son, 78 8 S o. 2d 13 4, 13 8 (A l a. 20 00 ) ( “ [W ] hen tri p art i t e rel at i o n sh i p s ex i stan d d i sp u t es ari se b etw een tw o o f th e th ree p art i es, the n a c l a i m a l l e gi ng i nt e r f e r e nc e by the thi r d pa r ty tha ta r i s e s f r om c onduc tby the thi r d pa r ty tha ti s appr opr i a t e unde ri t s c ontr a c tw i th the othe rtw o pa r t i e s i s not r e c o g n iz e d .” ) . T h e C M G d e f e n d a n ts c o n te n d th a t th is c a s e is o n a ll f o u r s w ith23

W i l l i am s v. A . L . W i l l i am s & A ss oci at es , Inc. , 55 5 S o. 2d 12 1 (A l a. 19 89 ), and that the di stri ctcourt ’ s f

ai l ure t o fol l ow thatdeci si on m akes i t s deni al of sum m ary ju d g m e n t a n e rr o ro f

p u r e la w . W e di s a gr e e . T he i s s ue of w he the rF os t e ra nd K i ng w e r e s tr a nge r s t o the b u s in e s s r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n p la in tif f s a n d th e ira g e n ts a n d c u s to m e r s is a f a c ti nt e ns i ve one . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notm i s s t a t e the l a w gove rni ng w he n s om e one i s astra ng ert o a bu si ness re l at i on shi p. T he C M G defe nd ant s s i m pl y a ss ertthat unde ra l l of

the f a c t s , the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve de c i de d tha tF os t e ra nd K i ng w e r e pa r t i e s t o the bus i ne s s r e l a t i ons hi p. T he r e i s no di s a gr e e m e ntaboutw ha tthe l a w i s r e ga r di ng w he n a t or t i ous i nt e r f e r e nc e c l a i m w i l l l i e . T he r e i s onl y a n i s s ue of appl yi ng the l aw t o thi s part i cul arfa ctual sc enar i o. T hati s notenou gh t o u pset th e u s u a l c o u r s e o f

p r o c e e d in g s a n d p e r m it a n in te r lo c u to ry ap p e a l. A l t e rna t i ve l y , r e s ol ut i on of thi s que s t i on w oul d not“ m a t e r i a l l y a dva nc e the ul t i m at e t erm i nat i on of the l i t i gat i on , ” a s r equi re d b y the st atut e. T he “ stra ng er ” q u e s tio n r e la te s o n ly to th e to r tio u s in te r f e r e n c e c la im , a n d a n s w e r in g it n o w w o u ld n o t g e t r id o f

a n y o f th e o th e rc la im s . R e s o lu tio n o f o n e c la im o u t o f

s e v e n w o u ld do t oo l i tt l e , i f

a ny thi ng, t o “ m a t e r i a l l y a dva nc e the ul t i m a t e t e r m i na t i on of the litig a tio n .” T h a t m ig h t n o t b e tru e o f o n e c la im o f

s e v e r a l in a n o th e rc a s e , b u t it is tru e o f th is c la im h e r e .24 C. T h e th ir d c o n tr o llin g q u e s tio n o f la w th e C M G d e f

e n d a n ts p r o p o s e in th e ir p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s : “ Wh e th e rth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te rr e d i n d e n y i n g [ th e C MG defe nd ant s’ ] m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entby fi nd i ng a c ause of ac t i on un der R IC O w here there ar e no speci fi c a l l egat i on s of m ai l and w i re fr aud agai nstF ost er and K i ng , thu s turni ng a gar den v ar i ety busi ness di sput e i nt o a R IC O ac t i on . ” T he defendant s a rgued t o the di stri ctcourtthatpl ai nt i ff s’ R IC O cl ai m s w er e n o t p le d w ith s u f

f ic ie n t p a r tic u la r ity . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi s a gr e e d, how e ve r , a nd f ound tha tthe pl a i nt i f

f s ha d pr e s e nt e d s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o c r e a t e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o the i rf

r a ud c l a i m s , a nd ha d pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda nt s us e d the m a i l , f a xe s , a nd t e l e phone s t o c om m uni c a t e the m i srep resen t at i o n s t o p l ai n t i ffs. I tde ni e d the m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nton the R IC O cl ai m s. In thei r bri ef

t o u s, the C M G defe nd ant s r enew thei r a rgum entthatpl ai nt i ff s f a i l e d t o pl e a d the i rR I C O c l a i m s w i th s uf f i c i e ntpa r t i c ul a r i ty , a s r e qui r e d by F e d. R . C i v. P . 9( b) . T ha ti s a c l a s s i c e xa m pl e of a que s t i on a r i s i ng f

r om the appl i c a t i on o f w e ll- a c c e p te d la w to th e p a r tic u la rf a c ts o f a p le a d in g in a s p e c if

ic c a s e . L i ke w i s e , the i rc ont e nt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng the i rm ot i on f or s um m a ry j udgm e nton the gr ounds tha tthe e vi de nc e r a i s e d a ge nui ne i s s ue of25

m a t e r i a l f

a c tpr e s e nt s a run- of

- the - m i ne que s t i on r e qui r i ng us t o di g de e p i nt o the re cord of thi s c as e. N o p ure or abstra ctl egal qu es t i on of any s i gn i fi ca nti m po rt beyond thi s c as e i s a tst ake. T hese defe nd ant s s i m pl y w antus t o revi ew the di stri ct c o u r t’s ta k e o n th e f

a c ts th a t r e a s o n ab ly c o u ld b e in f e rr e d f r o m th e e v id e n c e . T hat is n o t th e p u rp o s e o f

§ 1 2 9 2 ( b ) ap p e a ls . B e s id e s , a n in te r lo c u to ry ap p e lla te de c i s i on aboutthi s c l a i m w oul d not“ m a t e r i a l l y a dva nc e the ul t i m a t e t e r m i na t i on of the l i t i gat i on . ” I tm i gh tdi spose of the R IC O cl ai m , bu ti tw ou l d l ea ve the others s ta n d in g . D. A tor a l a r gum e nt , the C M G de f e nda nt s a s s e r t e d tha ta nothe rc ontr ol l i ng q u e s tio n o f

la w is w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in h o ld in g , w ith r e s p e c t to p l ai n t i ffs’ frau d cl ai m s, th atp l ai n t i ffs reaso n ab l y rel i ed o n d efen d an t s’ m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s in lig h t o f th e c o u r s e o f

d e a lin g s b e tw e e n th e p a r tie s . A p a r ty is n o t a llo w e d to r a is e a t o r a l a r g u m e n t an e w is s u e f o rr e v ie w . F la n ig a n ’s E n te rp r is e s , I n c . v . F u lto n C o u n ty , 2 4 2 F .3 d 9 7 6 , 9 8 7 n .1 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2001) ( pa r ty w a i ve s i s s ue notde ve l ope d i n i t s br i e f s ) ( c i t i ng C ont i ne nt a l T e c h. S ervs. , Inc. , v. R ockw el l Int ’ l C orp. , 92 7 F . 2d 11 98 , 11 99 (11th C i r. 19 91 ) ( sa m e) ); C hapm an v. A I T ra nspo rt , 22 9 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 44 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( i ss ue no tra i se d on appe a l i s w a i ve d) ; C a m pa i gn f ora P r os pe r ous G e or gi av. S E C , 149 F . 3d 1282,26

1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 8 ) ( is s u e n o t r a is e d o n ap p e a l is ab a n d o n e d ) . B y f a ilin g to pr opos e thi s i s s ue a s a c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on of l a w i n the i rpe t i t i on f

orpe r m i s s i on to ap p e a l o rth e irb r ie f

, th e d e f e n d a n ts h a v e w a iv e d it. A d d itio n a lly , e v e n if

th is is s u e h a d b e e n r a is e d in th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ p e titio n , it do es no ti nv ol ve “ a c on trol l i ng qu es t i on of l aw as t o w hi ch there i s s ub st ant i al grou nd for di ff

er ence of op i ni on . ” T he C M G defe nd ant s’ ar gu m enti s thatun der A lab a m a la w th e r e lia n c e e le m e n t o f a f r a u d c la im m a y n o t b e e s tab lis h e d w ith pa r ol e vi de nc e unl e s s the c our tf i nds tha tthe r e i s a m bi gui ty i n the l a ngua ge of the c o n tr a c t. F o rth is p r o p o s itio n , th e y c ite G a r d n e rv . S ta te F a r m M u tu a l A u to I ns ur a nc e C om pa ny , 822 S o. 2d 1201, 1207 ( A l a . C i v. A pp. 2001) ( “ W he n a w r itte n a g r e e m e n t is d e te r m in e d to b e c le a ra n d u n a m b ig u o u s , p a r o l e v id e n c e is n o t a d m is s ib le to v a ry th e te r m s o f th e a g r e e m e n t.” ) . A n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, a c c or di ng t o de f

e nda nt s , di d nots t a t e i n i t s opi ni on tha ti tf ound the c ontr a c tt o be a m b ig u o u s . E ve n i f de f e nda nt s w e r e c orr e c ttha ta di s tr i c tc our ti s r e qui r e d t o f i nd a m bi gui ty i n a c ontr a c tbe f or e c ons i de r i ng pa r ol e vi de nc e of r e l i a nc e , the r e i s no i ndi c a t i on i n G a r dne rora ny othe ra uthor i ty c i t e d by the de f e nda nt s tha tthe re qu i re d fi nd i ng m ustbe st at ed by the di stri ctcourt . B ec ause they have pres ent ed no a uthor i ty i n s uppor tof thi s pr e m i s e , w hi c h i s ne c e s s a ry t o the i rpos i t i on on theIt is unclear whether the district court a

pplied Alabama

or Ohio law. Theparties a rgue 2 points of both Alabama law and Ohio law to us. B eca use wefind no controllingquestions of law re g ardle ss of whether Alaba ma or Ohio lawapplies, weneed not de cide which state’s law g overns. 27 q u e s tio n th e y p r o f

f e ra s c o n tr o llin g , th e d e f e n d a n ts h a v e f

a ile d to c a rry th e ir bur de n of

e s t abl i s hi ng tha ta s t o thi s que s t i on “ the r e i s s ubs t a nt i a l gr ound f or d if f e r e n c e o f o p in io n .” S e e B u rr e ll, 9 7 0 F .2 d a t 7 8 8 - 8 9 . E. T he one que s t i on putf

orw a r d by the C ons e c o de f e nda nt s i n the i rpe t i t i on f or re vi ew i s: “ W here the di stri ctcourtdi d n oti dent i fya bre ac h o f aspec i fi c t erm cont ai ned i n the M arket i ng A gree m ent s betw ee n [pl ai nt i ff s a nd defe nd ant s] , ca n th e r e b e a c o n tr a c tu a l c a u s e o f a c tio n f o rb r e a c h o f

th e im p lie d d u ty o f

g o o d f a ith a n d f a i rd e a l i n g u n d e rAl ab a mal a w?” T he C on se co defendant s c on t end thatthe di stri ctcourt , i n fi nd i ng that pl ai nt i ff s had pres ent ed enou gh evi dence t o cre at e agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ct a s t o the i rbr e a c h of

c ontr a c tc l a i m s , ne c e s s a r i l y he l d tha ta c l a i m f orbr e a c h of

the i m pl i e d duty of

good f a i th a nd f

a i rde a l i ng c a n l i e e ve n i n the abs e nc e of a va l i d c la im f o re x p lic it b r e a c h o f

a te r m o f

th e c o n tr a c t. T h is , a c c o r d in g to d e f e n d a n ts , is d i r e c t l y c o n tr a ry t o Al ab a m a a n d Oh i o l a w. 2 W he the ra c l a i m f

orbr e a c h of

the i m pl i e d duty of

good f a i th a nd f

a i rde a l i ng c a n lie in th e ab s e n c e o f a v a lid b r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t c la im is a p u r e q u e s tio n o f la w .28

H o w e v e r , w e c a n n o t te ll f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o p in io n w h e th e r , in f a c t, it h e ld th a t th e p la in tif

f s h a d s ta te d a c la im f

o rb r e a c h o f

th e im p lie d d u ty o f

g o o d f a ith a nd f a i rde a l i ng, de s pi t e f

a i l i ng t o s t a t e a c l a i m f

orbr e a c h of

a n e xpl i c i tpr ovi s i on of the c ontr a c t . F orf

ourpa ge s of

i t s opi ni on, the di s tr i c tc our tt a l ke d aboutthe b r e a c h o f

th e e x e c u tiv e m a r k e tin g a g r e e m e n ts . I t f ir s t d is c u s s e d th e e x p lic it brea ches pl ai nt i ff

s a l l eged, and then the pl ai nt i ff s’ ar gu m entthatdefe nd ant s had a ls o b r e a c h e d th e im p lie d d u ty o f g o o d f a ith . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly h e ld th a t a pa r t i c ul a rpl a i nt i f

f – S t i f f l e r– ha d s e tf

or th e vi de nc e i ndi c a t i ng a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a te r ia l f

a c t r e g a r d in g h is c la im o f a n e x p lic it b r e a c h o f

th e m a r k e tin g a g r e e m e n t. F i nal l y, i n a pass age the preci se m ea ni ng of w hi ch i s uncl ea r, the di stri ctcourt st at ed: “ T he courtagre es w i th the pl ai nt i ff s’ po si t i on , and fi nd s a cc ordi ng l y, that th e r e is a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t p r e c lu d in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e ir c la im s f o rb r e a c h o f

th e e x e c u tiv e m a r k e tin g a g r e e m e n t.” W e c a n n o t te ll f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o p in io n w h e th e rit a g r e e d w ith p la in tif f s ’ p o s itio n th a t ab r e a c h o f th e d u tyo f

g o o d f a ith a n d f

a ird e a lin g a lo n e is e nough, ori ns t e a d c onc l ude d tha tthe r e ha d a l s o be e n a s e pa r a t e br e a c h of the contra ct . W e c anno tfi nd any hel p i n the l angu age of the di stri ctcourt ’ s order c e r t i f y i ng the c a s e f

or§ 1292( b) r e vi e w , be c a us e i tf a i l e d t o s pe c i f

y the i s s ue the c o u r t th o u g h t to in v o lv e a c o n tr o llin g q u e s tio n o f la w ab o u t w h ic h th e r e is29

s ubs t a nt i a l gr ound f

ordi f f e r e nc e of opi ni on. R e vi e w unde r§ 1292( b) doe s not exi stfor the pu rpose of r es ol vi ng am bi gu i t i es i n d i stri ctcourtrul i ng s. T he bu rden of pe r s ua di ng us tha ta que s t i on of l a w m e e t i ng the r e qui r e m e nt s of § 1292( b) c l e a r l y i s pr e s e nt e d i s on the pe t i t i oni ng pa r ty , a nd the C ons e c o de f e nda nt s ha ve n o t c a rr ie d th a t b u r d e n . O urde c i s i on nott o r e a d a c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on of l a w i nt o a n a m bi guous di stri ctcourtop i ni on for § 12 92 (b) purpo se s i l l um i nat es an i m po rt antpo i nt . W hen a di s tr i c tc our tc e r t i f

i e s a n or de rf

orappe a l , i ts houl d s pe c i f y the c ontr ol l i ng que s t i on of

l a w i tha s i n m i nd. T ha ti s pa rt i c ul a r l y true w he r e the or de rbe i ng c e r t i f i e d f orr e vi e w r e s ol ve s num e r ous i s s ue s ; thi s one i nvol ve d s e ve n di f f e r e nt types of cl ai m s by m ul t i pl e pl ai nt i ff s a gai nsttw o set s of def endant s. A l tho ug h, as w e not e d e a r l i e ri n thi s opi ni on, the f a i l ur e of a di s tr i c tc our tt o s pe c i f y a que s t i on i s n o tfat al , see Y am ah a M o t o r, 5 1 6 U . S . at2 0 5 , 1 1 6 S . C t . at6 2 3 , w e h av e al so no t ed thatou r r evi ew i s di sc re t i on ary. G i ven o ur ca se l oad, w hen the di stri ctcourt ha nds us a n e nt i r e c a s e t o s or tthr ough f orour s e l ve s w e a r e l i ke l y t o ha nd i tr i ght back. If the di stri ctcourti s unsure abo utw hi ch of the qu es t i on s, i f a ny, thatar e answ er ed by i t s orderqu al i fyfor c ert i fi ca t i on un der § 12 92 (b), i tshou l d n otce rt i fy the or de rf

orr e vi e w . I f

c onvi nc e d tha ta pa r t i c ul a rque s t i on doe s qua l i f y , the d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld te ll u s w h ic h q u e s tio n it is .30 V. In concl usi on , w hi l e w e r ec og ni ze thatthere ar e e xcept i on s t o al m ostevery rul e , w e be l i e ve tha ta s a rul e a n appe l l a t e c our toughtt o gr a ntpe r m i s s i on f or appe a l unde r§ 1292( b) onl y on ( 1) pur e que s t i ons of l a w ( 2) w hi c h a r e c ontr ol l i ng of atl ea sta s ub st ant i al partof the ca se , (3) a nd w hi ch ar e s peci fi ed by the di stri ct courti n i t s order , (4) a nd abou tw hi ch there ar e s ub st ant i al grou nd s f or di ff er ence of opi ni on, ( 5) a nd w hos e r e s ol ut i on m a y w e l l s ubs t a nt i a l l y r e duc e the a m ountof l i t i ga t i on ne c e s s a ry on r e m a nd. E ve n i n thos e c i r c um s t a nc e s w he the rt o gr a nt p e r m is s io n f

o ra n in te r lo c u to ry ap p e a l lie s in th e d is c r e tio n o f th e ap p e lla te c o u r t, w h ic h in e x e r c is in g its d is c r e tio n s h o u ld k e e p in m in d th a t th e g r e a t b u lk o f its re vi ew m ustbe cond uct ed af t erfi nal j ud gm ent , w i th § 12 92 (b) i nt er l ocut ory r e v ie w b e in g a r a r e e x c e p tio n . T hi s C ou rt ’ s pre vi ou s order s gra nt i ng perm i ss i on t o app ea l i n thi s c as e a re V A C A T E D , a n d th e p e titio n s f o rp e r m is s io n to ap p e a l a r e D E N I E D .