CLMS Management Services Limited Partnership v. Amwins Brokerage of Georgia LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 11, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05785
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 CLMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES CASE NO. 3:19-cv-05785-RBL 9 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ROUNDHILL I, L.P., ORDER ON MOTION FOR 10 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 28 Plaintiffs, U.S.C. § 1292(B) 11 v. DKT. # 43 12 AMWINS BROKERAGE OF GEORGIA, LLC; AMRISC, LLC; 13 C.J.W. & ACCOCIATES, INC.; and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT 14 LLOYD’S, 15 Defendants. 16

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Dkt. # 43. Plaintiffs wish to appeal the Court’s December 26, 2019 Order 18 granting Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings on the basis that RCW 19 48.18.200, which bars mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, is preempted by the 20 Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Art. II, Sec. 3, which requires U.S. 21 Courts to enforce arbitration clauses upon request. Order, Dkt. # 41. 22 Certification of a non-appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is appropriate only 23 when the following three requirements are met: (1) the order involves a controlling question of 24 1 law; (2) as to which there is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion; and (3) an 2 immediate appeal from the order could materially advance the ultimate termination of the 3 litigation. See 28 U.S. C. §1292(b); In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1025-26 4 (9th Cir. 1982). The Ninth Circuit instructs that certification under § 1292(b) “is to be applied 5 sparingly and only in exceptional cases.” United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 788 n.11

6 (9th Cir. 1959). Exceptional cases are those in which allowing interlocutory appeal would avoid 7 protracted and expensive litigation. In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d at 1026. 8 This is such a case. First, the issue raised for appeal is controlling because it will 9 determine whether this dispute will be resolved via arbitration in New York or in these 10 proceedings. Second, as the Court observed in its Order, there is considerable disagreement 11 between courts around the country about whether and why the Convention preempts state laws 12 like RCW 48.18.200. See Dkt. # 41 at 5-7. The Ninth Circuit has not weighed in on the question. 13 Consequently, although the Court is confident in its reasoning, this is not a run-of-the-mill 14 arbitration scenario; rather, the issue raised for appeal is complex and there is clearly room for

15 disagreement. 16 Finally, although granting Plaintiffs’ Motion will mean that this case temporarily remains 17 in the federal judiciary, it will ultimately lessen the risk of the parties spending unnecessary time 18 litigating. Allowing Plaintiffs to appeal now rather than after the conclusion of arbitration and 19 formal dismissal of this case will eliminate the danger of going through an entire unnecessary 20 arbitration process. On the other hand, denying Plaintiffs’ Motion would guarantee that 21 arbitration takes place but may also result in the same appeal occurring on a later date. It is 22 therefore in the interest of efficiency to allow Plaintiffs to go forward with their interlocutory 23 appeal. 24 1 For the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1292(b) is GRANTED. This case shall remain STAYED until the culmination of the appeal 3 process. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 Dated this 11th day of February, 2020. 7 A 8 Ronald B. Leighton 9 United States District Judge

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24