Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Little Bulman
-
Misc | Filed: March 18, 2024 | Entered: March 18, 2024 United States v. Davis, et al
Environmental Matters | Rhode Island
Exhibits Destroyed
NOTICE OF DISPOSAL OF EXHIBITS (Plaintiff and Defendant) re: 04/06/1998 - 6/11/1998 Bench Trial. (DaCruz, Kayla)
-
Notice | Filed: February 12, 2024 | Entered: February 12, 2024 United States v. Davis, et al
Environmental Matters | Rhode Island
Notice of Exhibit Return
NOTICE OF EXHIBIT RETURN (Plaintiff and Defendant) re: 04/06/1998 - 6/11/1998 Bench Trial. Counsel must contact Clerk to pick up exhibits by 3/13/2024 or exhibits will be destroyed. (DaCruz, Kayla)
-
Order | Filed: May 06, 2022 | Entered: May 06, 2022 The Dennis Group, Inc. v. Nestle Purina Pet Care Co. et al
Contract: Other | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Certificate of Appealability
Electronic order entered denying 39 Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal. "Interlocutory appeals under § 1292(b) require an order (1) 'involv[ing] a controlling question of law,' (2) 'as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,' and (3) for which 'an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.'" Caraballo-Seda v. Municipality Of Hormigueros, 395 F.3d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)). The First Circuit has "repeatedly emphasized that interlocutory certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, and where the proposed intermediate appeal presents one or more difficult and pivotal questions of law not settled by controlling authority." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). "As a general rule, [courts] do not grant interlocutory appeals from a denial of a motion to dismiss." Id. This general rule "reflects [the First Circuit's] policy preference against piecemeal litigation,...as well as prudential concerns about mootness, ripeness, and lengthy appellate proceedings." Id. (citation omitted).
The court finds that Defendant has not satisfied its burden to obtain interlocutory appeal. First, the personal jurisdiction inquiry here presents a mixed question of law and fact, not a pure legal issue. See S. Orange Chiropractic Ctr., LLC v. Cayan LLC, 2016 WL 3064054, at *2 (D. Mass. May 31, 2016) ("A controlling question of law usually involves 'a question of the meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision, regulation, or common law doctrine' rather than an application of law to the facts." (quoting Ahrenholz v. Bd. of Tr. of Univ. of Ill., 219 F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2000)); see also Palandjian v. Pahlavi, 782 F.2d 313, 314 (1st Cir. 1986). The Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., 2020 WL 4754984, at *2 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2020) decision, which Defendant relies upon, recognizes these same principles. The ultimate ruling in Waters is distinguishable because there, the issue was whether the Supreme 's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), extended to FLSA collective actions, "a pure legal [question] that can be resolved without extensive consultation to the record." Waters, 2020 WL 4754984, at *2. Here, as Plaintiff argues, Defendant's "jurisdictional challenge requires a fact-intensive inquiry to determine sufficient contacts with the forum state." (Dkt. No. 46 at 7.) Defendant's motion for interlocutory appeal "contends that not all of [the court's] findings were well-supported by the affidavit evidence" and "takes issue with the Court's application of the [Gestalt] factors." (Dkt. No. 40 at 4 nn. 1 & 2.) Second, Defendant failed to identify a split in the case law such that "there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Defendant instead merely argues that "[r]easonable jurists could differ in their jurisdictional analysis here," without citing any cases. (Dkt. No. 40 at 7.) Moreover, although Defendant emphasizes the "novel question" of "the jurisdictional implications of COVID-19 remote-work directives," (Dkt. No. 40 at 7), that was not a major focus of the briefing on the motion to dismiss or the hearing. In fact, the courts decision did not reference COVID-19 at all; instead, the court explained that "Defendant knew, from past business transactions, that Plaintiff's Massachusetts-based employees would perform significant work to prepare the bid, negotiate a contract, and perform portions of the contracted work." (Dkt. No. 25 at 6.) (Figueroa, Tamara)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login