Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 5, 2017

AARON SENNE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP., et al., Defendants.

         Re: Dkt. Nos. 783, 786

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR APPEAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) AND STAYING CASE

          JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Presently before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Certify for Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (“Motion to Certify”) and Motion for a Stay (“Motion to Stay”). The Court finds that these motions are suitable for determination without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and therefore vacates the motion hearing set for May 12, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. The Court also continues the May 12, 2017 Case Management Conference to August 18, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are GRANTED.[1]

         II. BACKGROUND

         On July 21, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and decertified a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act it had preliminarily certified. Docket No. 687. In the same Order, it granted Defendants' request to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. J. Michael Dennis, under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. Plaintiffs brought a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion for Leave”) on August 4, 2016. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Leave on August 19, 2016, allowing Plaintiffs to “file a renewed motion . . . for class certification under Rule 23 in which Plaintiffs will propose narrower classes and address the concerns articulated by the Court in its July 21 Order, including those related to the survey conducted by their expert and the expert opinions that were based on the survey.” Docket No. 710 (“August 19 Order”) at 1. Under the August 19 Order, Plaintiffs were also permitted to “seek (re)certification of narrower FLSA classes than the ones the Court decertified in its July 21 Order.” Id.

         Following another round of briefing, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' renewed motion in an order dated March 7, 2017 (“the March 7, 2017 Order”). In the March 7, 2017 Order, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request to certify under Rule 23 the proposed Arizona and Florida classes, granted Plaintiffs' request to certify the proposed California class, and certified a narrower collective under the FLSA than had been proposed by Plaintiffs in their original class certification motion. The Court also concluded that Dr. Dennis's Main Survey was admissible to prove Plaintiffs' class claims, reversing its earlier holding.

         On March 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking permission to appeal the denial of Plaintiffs' proposed Arizona and Florida classes. On that same date, Defendants filed with the Ninth Circuit a Rule 23(f) petition seeking permission to appeal the certification of Plaintiffs' California class. It also filed the instant Motion to Certify in this Court, asking the undersigned to certify for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) issues related to the Court's certification of the FLSA collective in the March 7, 2017 Order. On March 24, 2017, Defendants filed the Motion to Stay, seeking a stay of all proceedings in this Court pending resolution of the parties' petitions and any related appeals by the Ninth Circuit.

         III. MOTION TO CERTIFY

         A. Legal Standard

         A federal district court may certify a non-dispositive order for interlocutory review where the district judge finds that: 1) “the order involves a controlling question of law” 2) “as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion;” and 3) “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Section 1292(b) requires the district court to expressly find in writing that all three § 1292(b) requirements are met. Id. “Courts traditionally will find that a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where 'the circuits are in dispute on the question and the court of appeals of the circuit has not spoken on the point, if complicated questions arise under foreign law, or if novel and difficult questions of first impression are presented.'” Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 3 Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 3:212 (2010)).

         “Section 1292(b) is a departure from the normal rule that only final judgments are appealable, and therefore must be construed narrowly.” James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1067 n.6 (9th Cir.2002). In seeking interlocutory appeal, a movant therefore has a heavy burden to show that “exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978).

         B. Discussion

         In the Motion to Certify, Defendants point to three issues that they contend satisfy the requirements of Section 1292(b): 1) the Court's reliance on the “continuous workday” rule in support of its conclusion that Plaintiffs' claims can be addressed on a classwide basis; 2) the Court's conclusion that Plaintiffs' “Main Survey” is admissible; and 3) the Court's conclusion that a collective may be certified under the “primary beneficiary” test. For the reasons stated below, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.