Opinion ID: 718368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 16 Dickinson & Co. contends that we lack jurisdiction. It argues that the order certified by the district court does not involve a controlling question of law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Although we give deference to the ruling of the motions panel, we have an independent duty to confirm that our jurisdiction is proper. We hold that the motions panel did not err. 17 Dickinson & Co. argues that under In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir.1982), no question of law can be controlling unless it determines who will win on the merits. But in Cement Litigation we stated that issues collateral to the merits may be the proper subject of an interlocutory appeal. 673 F.2d at 1027 n. 5. We agree with the district court that an order may involve a controlling question of law if it could cause the needless expense and delay of litigating an entire case in a forum that has no power to decide the matter. A contrary holding would render meaningless the acknowledgment in 9 U.S.C. § 16(b) that an interlocutory order pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act may in some circumstances satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).