Opinion ID: 460381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Certify Question of State Law

Text: 22 Appellant contends that the court erred when it declined to certify to the Washington Supreme Court the question whether civilian police, situated as was the government in this case, would be liable for the actions of an intoxicated person. We note that the issue of certification was first raised in a post-judgment memorandum and that appellant requested certification only [i]f the Court is hesitant to interpret local law with respect to the issue.... Indeed, throughout the trial and in her briefs on appeal, appellant did not contend that the relevant state law was too uncertain to be determined and applied by the federal court. 23 The appellant listed the certification issue on appeal, but did not brief it. Nor did the government. This court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant's opening brief. International Union of Bricklayer & Allied Craftsman v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1985). 24 We find that the issue has not been waived. However, we conclude the claim fails on its merits. Use of the certification procedure in any given case rests in the sound discretion of the federal court. Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391, 94 S.Ct. 1741, 1744, 40 L.Ed.2d 215 (1974). Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in resolving the issue of the government's liability based on application of Washington law without resort to certification. 25