New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) — Issue of First Impression Is Not Enough

Download PDF

The district court may certify an otherwise non-final order to permit an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) when its decision (1) involves a controlling question of law, (2) there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion about the controlling question, and (3) an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Satisfying prong (2) can be a challenge. Specifically, the fact that the question decided may have been one of first impression is not necessarily enough to warrant a 1292(b) certification, as pointed out by District Judge Gregory L. Frost in Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58753 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 10, 2007): ‛The fact that this Court addressed an issue of first impression in its July 10, 2007 Opinion and Order ... does nothing to demonstrate a substantial ground for a difference of opinion as to the correctness of that ruling. [Citations omitted.] ... Here, the Court found that the issue ... was not difficult.... In light of these considerations, there is no basis for this Court to find that there is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion and thus expect that the Sixth Circuit would reach a different conclusion.“

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far From Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice