Rocketpower, Inc. v. Strio Consulting, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: July 22, 2019
• Docket: 0:19-cv-01928
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 ROCKETPOWER, INC., a Delaware No. C 19-02900 WHA corporation, 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 12 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION v. TO CERTIFY FOR APPEAL 13 AND DENYING STRIO CONSULTING, INC., a Minnesota MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS 14 corporation, 15 Defendant. / 16 17 On July 17, 2019, an order transferred this action to the District of Minnesota (Dkt. No. 18 26). RocketPower immediately moved to certify the order for interlocutory appeal (Dkt. No. 19 28). The next day, RocketPower waffled on its request to certify, moving for a two-week stay so 20 that it could “evaluate and decide what appellate relief, if any, to pursue at the Ninth Circuit 21 Court of Appeals” (Dkt. No. 29). RocketPower also moved to shorten time to hear the motion to 22 stay (Dkt. No. 30). Strio opposed certification for appeal (Dkt. No. 31). 23 Once a federal court has ordered a case transferred to another court, immediate appellate 24 review may only be sought by either (i) a petition for writ of mandamus or (ii) by asking the 25 district court for permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). NBS 26 Imaging Sys., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Cal., 841 F.2d 297, 298 (9th 27 Cir. 1998); Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 1968). Section 28 1292(b) contains three requirements for certification for interlocutory appeal. Specifically, a 1 must exist, and an interlocutory appeal must materially advance the litigation. All three 2 requirements must be met. Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). None 3 has been met here. 4 First, RocketPower solely contends that it presented a controlling question of law. 5 RocketPower never argues that the latter two requirements have been met. This on its own sinks 6 the motion. 7 Second, even RocketPower’s contention that it has presented a controlling question of 8 law fails. RocketPower merely parroted the issues presented, never explaining how “resolution 9 of the issue[s] on appeal could materially affect the outcome of litigation in the district court.” 10 In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1981), aff’d sub nom. Arizona v. Ash 11 Grove Cement Co., 459 U.S. 1190 (1983). As such, RocketPower has not met a single 12 requirement for interlocutory appeal. 13 RocketPower’s half-baked motions will not be permitted as a tactical ploy to further 14 delay resolution of this litigation. This action has caused enough burden on the courts and the 15 defendant. All three of RocketPower’s motions are DENIED. The Clerk shall transfer this action 16 to the District of Minnesota. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: July 22, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28