Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp.

D. Massachusetts

Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp.

789 F. Supp. 2d 251, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60946, 2011 WL 2192814

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedMay 27, 2011

DocketCivil Action 08-10772-NMG

StatusPublished

This text of 789 F. Supp. 2d 251 (Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., 789 F. Supp. 2d 251, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60946, 2011 WL 2192814 (D. Mass. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

GORTON, District Judge.

Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) moves to certify as an appealable interlocutory order this Court’s Memorandum & Order dated March 18, 2011, 2011 WL 1002740 (“the March M & O”), which held that defendant had violated the Massachusetts Tips Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 152A.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), this Court may certify an interlocutory order *252 for appeal where 1) the order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” and 2) an immediate appeal “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation”.

Having considered the memoranda submitted on behalf of both parties, this Court, in its discretion, determines that certification is unwarranted here because, inter alia, the only remaining issue to be decided by this Court is damages. Moreover, certification “should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances,” McGillicuddy v. Clements, 746 F.2d 76, 77 n. 1 (1st Cir.1984) (citation omitted), and such appeals “are, accordingly, hen’s-teeth rare.” Camacho v. P.R. Ports Auth., 369 F.3d 570, 573 (1st Cir.2004). Such dire circumstances are not present here.

Defendant’s motion to certify the March M & 0 as an appealable interlocutory order (Docket No. 58) is, therefore, DENIED.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

GORTON, District Judge.

Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) moves to certify as an appealable interlocutory order this Court’s Memorandum & Order dated March 18, 2011, 2011 WL 1002740 (“the March M & O”), which held that defendant had violated the Massachusetts Tips Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 152A.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), this Court may certify an interlocutory order *252 for appeal where 1) the order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” and 2) an immediate appeal “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation”.

Having considered the memoranda submitted on behalf of both parties, this Court, in its discretion, determines that certification is unwarranted here because, inter alia, the only remaining issue to be decided by this Court is damages. Moreover, certification “should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances,” McGillicuddy v. Clements, 746 F.2d 76, 77 n. 1 (1st Cir.1984) (citation omitted), and such appeals “are, accordingly, hen’s-teeth rare.” Camacho v. P.R. Ports Auth., 369 F.3d 570, 573 (1st Cir.2004). Such dire circumstances are not present here.

Defendant’s motion to certify the March M & 0 as an appealable interlocutory order (Docket No. 58) is, therefore, DENIED.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 F. Supp. 2d 251, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60946, 2011 WL 2192814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matamoros-v-starbucks-corp-mad-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack