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

§ 1292(b) Certification Is Not Appropriate Simply Because the Interlocutory Decision Addresses an Issue of First Impression or Complex, Difficult Statutory Interpretation

Download PDF

From Lang v. Crocker Park, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83451 (N.D. Ohio July 29, 2011):

B. Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion Is Not Present

Defendants posit that the language used by the court in its Order is intentionally equivocal in recognition of the fact that certain provisions of the ADAAG [Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ] are susceptible to competing interpretations. *** In support of this contention, Defendants emphasize the court's use of the word "plausibly." Id. Defendants also cite the court's use of the phrase "may be" as further evidence of the court's equivocation. Id.

However, a plaintiff's claim survives a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when the complaint contains "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While Defendants may take issue with the equivocal nature of the word "plausibly," the fact remains that the analysis of a complaint under a motion to dismiss pertains to the plausibility standard. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949. Thus, the word "plausibly" is not used in the Order to express doubt about the court's own interpretation of the relevant statutes, but rather is used in the context of applying the correct legal standard. Further, the court used "may be" regarding certain regulations and Defendants' obligations arising under those regulations because the applicability of those regulations or obligations to the present case hinges on questions of fact. As it is neither possible nor appropriate to make these determinations of fact at this point in the proceedings, the court used "may be" to express its reliance on future factual determinations.

Defendants point out that it appears that no court, let alone the Sixth Circuit, has ruled on the issue Defendants urge the court to certify. *** Defendants maintain that the substantial ground for the difference of opinion requirement of § 1292(b) is met if the court's decision raises "questions which are novel, or involve matters of first impression." Gionis v. Javitch, Block and Rathbone, 405 F. Supp. 2d 865, 873 (S.D. Ohio 2005). However, courts have also noted that the fact that a court addressed an issue of first impression does not demonstrate the existence of substantial ground for difference of opinion. See Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, No. 2:06-CV-99, 2007 WL 2326877, at *3; Atlas Lederer Co., 174 F. Supp. 2d at 669 (citing In re Flor, 79 F.3d 281, 284 (2d Cir. 1996) (noting that "the mere presence of a disputed issue that is a question of first impression, standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate a substantial ground for difference of opinion")). Rather, the court should analyze the strength of the arguments in opposition to the challenged ruling when deciding whether there is truly substantial ground for dispute. Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer, 575 F. Supp. 280, 283 (E.D. Pa. 1983).

In the present case, Defendants disagree with the court's finding in its Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that the text of 28 C.F.R. Part 36 App. A § 4.1.2(5)(a) encompasses any given "parking area," arguing instead that the provision's reference to § 4.6 (which refers to "lots") excludes on-street parking from the statutory definition of "parking area." Still, as the court noted in its Order, the ADAAG provision cited above indicates that if accessible spots are provided in locations separate from non-accessible spots, the accessible spots must be in locations that are of "equivalent or greater accessibility, . . . cost and convenience." (Order at p. 6.) Defendants maintain that "substantial grounds for difference of opinion may exist when the court is faced with issues of statutory interpretation that are somewhat novel and complex." N.J., Dept. of Treasury, Div. of Inv. v. Fuld, Civ. No. 09-1629, 2009 WL 2905432, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2009). However, the court finds that neither the complexity of the statutory interpretation issue nor the strength of Defendants' arguments rise to the level that would warrant certification of this issue for immediate interlocutory appeal. Because 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is a rare exception to the final judgment rule, courts have noted that it is "not intended merely to provide an avenue for review of difficult rulings in hard cases." Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 4:04cv01359, 2007 WL 38675, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 4, 2007) (quoting Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. First Nat. Bank of Waukesha, Wis., 604 F. Supp. 616, 620 (D. Wis. 1985)). The dearth of cases treating this issue is not, by itself, sufficient to show that substantial ground for difference of opinion is present in this case, despite the fact that Defendants disagree with the court's interpretation of the statute. Additionally, the statutory language is not so complex that the court is compelled to submit the issue to the Sixth Circuit. Therefore, the court finds that, while there may be disagreement among the parties on the interpretation of the ADA for the purposes of certifying the appeal under § 1292(b), substantial ground for difference of opinion is not present in this case.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

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

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice