UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

CLIFFORD BAILEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:17-cv-332

vs.

VERSO COPRPORATION, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(Consent Case)

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 

AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT (DOC. 47)

______________________________________________________________________

This civil consent case is before the Court on Defendant’s motion 

to file an interlocutory appeal and to stay proceedings in this Court 

pending such appeal. Doc. 47. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in 

opposition to Defendant’s motion. Doc. 48. Thereafter, Defendant filed 

a reply. Doc. 49. The Court has carefully considered all of the 

foregoing, and Defendant’s motion is ripe for decision.

Courts of appeal lack “jurisdiction to review an order of the 

district court unless it is a final decision or otherwise appealable as 

an interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or a decision certified 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).” Bosley v. Buckeye Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 

928 F.2d 1132, 1132 (6th Cir. 1991). Defendant seeks to appeal this 

Court’s interlocutory Order denying Defendant’s motion for judgment on 

the pleadings under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which states:

When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order 

not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of 

the opinion 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 
2

of the litigation, he [or she] shall so state in writing 

in such order.

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

To “certify an order for interlocutory appeal[,]” the undersigned 

must be “ ‘of the opinion’ that three conditions exist: ‘[1] the order 

involves a controlling question of law to which there is [2] substantial 

ground for difference of opinion and ... [3] an immediate appeal may 

materially advance the termination of the litigation.” In re Trump, 874 

F.3d 948, 951 (6th Cir. 2017) (emphases omitted). “The decision to 

certify an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b) is left to the sound 

discretion of the district court.” Sigma Fin. Corp. v. Am. Int’l 

Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 200 F. Supp. 2d 710, 723 (E.D. Mich. 2002). 

In exercising such discretion, the undersigned is mindful that permitting

appeals of interlocutory orders under § 1292(b) should be done 

“sparingly” and “only in exceptional cases where an intermediate appeal 

may avoid protracted and expensive litigation.” Kraus v. Bd. of Cnty. 

Rd. Comm’rs for Kent Cnty., 364 F.2d 919, 922 (6th Cir. 1966).

In the Order Defendant seeks to appeal, the undersigned denied 

Defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion after finding that the terms of a 

collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the parties is patently 

ambiguous. Doc. 46. Such an issue, while one of law, is not the type 

of controlling issue § 1292(b) is meant to address. Cf. Ahrenholz v. 

Bd. of Tr. of Univ. of Ill., 219 F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he 

question of the meaning of a contract, though technically a question of 

law when there is no other evidence but the written contract itself, is 

not what the framers of section 1292(b) had in mind”); Liberty Ins. 

Underwriters, Inc. v. Westport Ins. Corp., No. 04 CV 01856 WYD BNB, 2006 
3

WL 2734304, at *2 (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2006) (“[T]he Court’s legal 

conclusion that” a particular contractual provision “is ambiguous is not 

a ‘pure’ legal issue as contemplated by § 1292(b)”; Aristocrat Leisure 

Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., 426 F. Supp. 2d 125, 128 (S.D.N.Y. 

2005) (“While the meaning of a contract generally is considered to be a 

question of law for the court, a question of contract interpretation 

typically is not a “controlling question of law” that serves as a basis 

for interlocutory appeal”); Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm’t 

Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“Differences over contract 

construction are not the sort of ‘controlling question of law’ that 

normally gives rise to interlocutory certification”).

Based on the foregoing, the Defendant’s motion (doc. 47) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 15, 2019 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge