1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE
7 NO. 23-cv-1680-BJR ALEXANDER FLOYD, 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiff, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 9 MOTION FOR PARTIAL v. RECONSIDERATION OR TO 10 CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY INSIGHT GLOBAL LLC, et al., APPEAL 11 Defendants. 12
13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 This case was originally filed in King County Superior Court alleging that Defendant, 15 Insight Global LLC (“Insight Global”) had violated a specific provision of Washington State’s 16 Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (“EPOA”), RCW 49.58.110, which requires certain employers to 17 disclose the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of other compensation and 18 benefits, in each posting for an available position. Insight Global removed the case to this Court on 19 the basis of diversity jurisdiction and filed a motion to dismiss, which this Court granted and 20 subsequently ordered the case be remanded back to King County Superior Court pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Am. Order, ECF No. 37. Now pending before the Court is Insight Global’s 22 motion seeking partial reconsideration, or, in the alternative, requesting the Court to certify the 23 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL 24 RECONSIDERATION OR TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 1 Amended Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and stay further proceedings. 2 Mot., ECF No. 38. Having reviewed the materials1 and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will 3 grant in part and deny in part Insight Global’s motion and lift the temporary stay of remand. The 4 reasoning for the Court’s decision follows. 5 II. BACKGROUND 6 On September 20, 2023, Alexander Floyd submitted a job application online through 7 LinkedIn.com for a Network Engineer in the Greater Seattle area with Insight Global. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 8 14-15, 29; Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1. He alleges that the job posting on LinkedIn did not disclose the 9 wage scale or salary range. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Mr. Floyd claims to represent more than 40 potential class 10 members who also applied for jobs with Insight Global for positions that did not disclose the wage 11 scale or salary range. Id. ¶ 14. By its dismissal motion, Insight Global contended that Mr. Floyd
12 lacked standing to bring a private cause of action and failed to allege that he applied in good faith 13 with the intent of gaining employment. Dismissal Mot., ECF No. 21. The Court addressed the 14 parties’ arguments regarding Mr. Floyd’s standing to sue Insight Global, and ultimately concluded 15 that Mr. Floyd lacked constitutional standing, requiring remand of this case back to state court. Am. 16 Order. 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Insight Global seeks partial reconsideration of the Amended Order, asking the Court to 19 strike some of the analysis it undertook, which Insight Global deems was unnecessary to the 20 threshold determination that constitutional standing does not exist. Mot. 1. Alternately, Insight 21 Global requests that the Court certify the Amended Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.
22 1 Including the motion, ECF No. 38; response in opposition, ECF No. 40; and reply, ECF No. 41. 23 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL 24 RECONSIDERATION OR TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 1 §1292(b), and that the Court stay further proceedings during the pendency of the interlocutory 2 appeal. Id. at 2. 3 A. Partial Reconsideration 4 The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is left to the sound discretion of 5 the trial court. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 6 1993). Such motions are disfavored and, absent exceptional circumstances, are only appropriate “if 7 the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the 8 initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 9 Id. at 1263; Western District of Washington Local Rule 7(h)(1) (“Motions for reconsideration are 10 disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest 11 error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been
12 brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”); see also Standing Order § H, ECF No. 13 17. 14 Insight Global argues that the Court should have declined to address issues related to 15 statutory standing and contends that since the Court found that Mr. Floyd lacked constitutional 16 standing, the analysis related to statutory standing is mere dicta and should be stricken. Mot. 3-4. 17 Insight Global also “acknowledges that it is not necessarily improper to address statutory standing 18 issues before addressing constitutional standing issues.” Id. (citing cases). Mr. Floyd neither 19 opposes nor addresses this request. Opp’n 2, ECF No. 40. 20 Although there is no showing of manifest error or any intervening change in controlling 21 law, in its discretion, the Court will strike Section IV.A from its Amended Order. The statutory
22 standing analysis undertaken was intertwined with the constitutional standing analysis, which is 23 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL 24 RECONSIDERATION OR TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 1 evident from the parties’ own arguments in their briefs regarding Insight Global’s dismissal motion. 2 See ECF Nos. 21, 25, 27. However, given the Court’s ultimate conclusion that Mr. Floyd did not 3 have constitutional standing, the additional analysis becomes advisory, and certainly is not binding 4 on the State court to whom the case is being remanded. See Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 5 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[O]nly Supreme Court law is binding on the states. . . .”); Yniguez v. State of Ariz., 6 939 F.2d 727, 736 n.9 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that a decision of a federal trial court is not binding 7 on the courts of a State). Accordingly, the Court strikes Section IV.A from its Amended Order 8 (page 7, line 18 to page 10, line 2). 9 B. Interlocutory Appeal 10 Generally, the United States Courts of Appeal have jurisdiction only over appeals from 11 “final decisions of the district courts.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Congress created a limited exception
12 to the final-judgment rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which “provides a mechanism by which litigants 13 can bring an immediate appeal of a non-final order upon the consent of both the district court and 14 the court of appeals.” In re Cement Antitrust (MDL No. 296), 673 F.2d 1020, 1025–26 (9th Cir. 15 1981) (en banc). Known as an interlocutory appeal, these appeals are approved only in “rare 16 circumstances” because they are “a departure from the normal rule that only final judgments are 17 appealable,” and therefore requests for interlocutory appeals “must be construed narrowly.” James 18 v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1070, n. 6 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE
7 NO. 23-cv-1680-BJR ALEXANDER FLOYD, 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiff, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 9 MOTION FOR PARTIAL v. RECONSIDERATION OR TO 10 CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY INSIGHT GLOBAL LLC, et al., APPEAL 11 Defendants. 12
13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 This case was originally filed in King County Superior Court alleging that Defendant, 15 Insight Global LLC (“Insight Global”) had violated a specific provision of Washington State’s 16 Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (“EPOA”), RCW 49.58.110, which requires certain employers to 17 disclose the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of other compensation and 18 benefits, in each posting for an available position. Insight Global removed the case to this Court on 19 the basis of diversity jurisdiction and filed a motion to dismiss, which this Court granted and 20 subsequently ordered the case be remanded back to King County Superior Court pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Am. Order, ECF No. 37. Now pending before the Court is Insight Global’s 22 motion seeking partial reconsideration, or, in the alternative, requesting the Court to certify the 23 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL 24 RECONSIDERATION OR TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 1 Amended Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and stay further proceedings. 2 Mot., ECF No. 38. Having reviewed the materials1 and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will 3 grant in part and deny in part Insight Global’s motion and lift the temporary stay of remand. The 4 reasoning for the Court’s decision follows. 5 II. BACKGROUND 6 On September 20, 2023, Alexander Floyd submitted a job application online through 7 LinkedIn.com for a Network Engineer in the Greater Seattle area with Insight Global. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 8 14-15, 29; Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1. He alleges that the job posting on LinkedIn did not disclose the 9 wage scale or salary range. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Mr. Floyd claims to represent more than 40 potential class 10 members who also applied for jobs with Insight Global for positions that did not disclose the wage 11 scale or salary range. Id. ¶ 14. By its dismissal motion, Insight Global contended that Mr. Floyd
12 lacked standing to bring a private cause of action and failed to allege that he applied in good faith 13 with the intent of gaining employment. Dismissal Mot., ECF No. 21. The Court addressed the 14 parties’ arguments regarding Mr. Floyd’s standing to sue Insight Global, and ultimately concluded 15 that Mr. Floyd lacked constitutional standing, requiring remand of this case back to state court. Am. 16 Order. 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Insight Global seeks partial reconsideration of the Amended Order, asking the Court to 19 strike some of the analysis it undertook, which Insight Global deems was unnecessary to the 20 threshold determination that constitutional standing does not exist. Mot. 1. Alternately, Insight 21 Global requests that the Court certify the Amended Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.
22 1 Including the motion, ECF No. 38; response in opposition, ECF No. 40; and reply, ECF No. 41. 23 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL 24 RECONSIDERATION OR TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 1 §1292(b), and that the Court stay further proceedings during the pendency of the interlocutory 2 appeal. Id. at 2. 3 A. Partial Reconsideration 4 The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is left to the sound discretion of 5 the trial court. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 6 1993). Such motions are disfavored and, absent exceptional circumstances, are only appropriate “if 7 the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the 8 initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 9 Id. at 1263; Western District of Washington Local Rule 7(h)(1) (“Motions for reconsideration are 10 disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest 11 error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been
12 brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”); see also Standing Order § H, ECF No. 13 17. 14 Insight Global argues that the Court should have declined to address issues related to 15 statutory standing and contends that since the Court found that Mr. Floyd lacked constitutional 16 standing, the analysis related to statutory standing is mere dicta and should be stricken. Mot. 3-4. 17 Insight Global also “acknowledges that it is not necessarily improper to address statutory standing 18 issues before addressing constitutional standing issues.” Id. (citing cases). Mr. Floyd neither 19 opposes nor addresses this request. Opp’n 2, ECF No. 40. 20 Although there is no showing of manifest error or any intervening change in controlling 21 law, in its discretion, the Court will strike Section IV.A from its Amended Order. The statutory
22 standing analysis undertaken was intertwined with the constitutional standing analysis, which is 23 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL 24 RECONSIDERATION OR TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 1 evident from the parties’ own arguments in their briefs regarding Insight Global’s dismissal motion. 2 See ECF Nos. 21, 25, 27. However, given the Court’s ultimate conclusion that Mr. Floyd did not 3 have constitutional standing, the additional analysis becomes advisory, and certainly is not binding 4 on the State court to whom the case is being remanded. See Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 5 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[O]nly Supreme Court law is binding on the states. . . .”); Yniguez v. State of Ariz., 6 939 F.2d 727, 736 n.9 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that a decision of a federal trial court is not binding 7 on the courts of a State). Accordingly, the Court strikes Section IV.A from its Amended Order 8 (page 7, line 18 to page 10, line 2). 9 B. Interlocutory Appeal 10 Generally, the United States Courts of Appeal have jurisdiction only over appeals from 11 “final decisions of the district courts.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Congress created a limited exception
12 to the final-judgment rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which “provides a mechanism by which litigants 13 can bring an immediate appeal of a non-final order upon the consent of both the district court and 14 the court of appeals.” In re Cement Antitrust (MDL No. 296), 673 F.2d 1020, 1025–26 (9th Cir. 15 1981) (en banc). Known as an interlocutory appeal, these appeals are approved only in “rare 16 circumstances” because they are “a departure from the normal rule that only final judgments are 17 appealable,” and therefore requests for interlocutory appeals “must be construed narrowly.” James 18 v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1070, n. 6 (9th Cir. 2002); see also In re Cement Antitrust, 19 673 F.2d at 1026 (stating that Section 1292(b) is “to be used only in exceptional situations in which 20 allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and expensive litigation”). The party 21 seeking interlocutory appeal “bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the case is an
22 23 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL 24 RECONSIDERATION OR TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 1 exceptional one in which immediate appeal is warranted.” White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir. 2 1994). 3 In its Reply, Insight Global notes that since Mr. Floyd essentially consented to the 4 withdrawal of Section IV.A from the Court’s Amended Order, it is unnecessary to address the 5 interlocutory appeal. Reply 2. Further, the issues are uniquely state court issues, i.e., how 6 Washington state courts would interpret provisions in the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities 7 Act. State courts provide the authoritative adjudication of questions of state law. Arizonans for 8 Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 48, (1997) (“Federal courts lack competence to rule 9 definitively on the meaning of state legislation.”). 10 Accordingly, Defendant’s request to certify interlocutory appeal is denied, and this case 11 shall be remanded to the King County Superior Court.
12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, 14 1. Defendant Insight Global, LLC’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration, or, in the Alternative, to Certify Interlocutory Appeal and Stay Proceedings, ECF No. 38, is 15 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 16 a. The Court hereby strikes Section IV.A from the Amended Order, ECF No. 37; 17 b. The Court denies Defendant’s request to certify interlocutory appeal. 18 2. This case is remanded to King County Superior Court. 19 DATED this 26th day of June 2024. 20 A 21 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein 22 U .S. District Court Judge
23 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL 24 RECONSIDERATION OR TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL