CADILLO v. STONELEIGH RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, 2:17-cv-07472

Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging Stoneleigh Recovery Associates violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending a debt-collection letter that failed to inform the recipient that disputes must be in writing.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the Court denied the motion in an Opinion and Order dated December 21, 2017.
The district court concluded the letter could mislead the "least sophisticated consumer" into believing a dispute need not be in writing.
Defendant sought certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to allow an immediate interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss.
The Court evaluated § 1292(b)’s three criteria: controlling question of law, substantial ground for difference of opinion, and whether immediate appeal would materially advance termination of litigation.
The Court found a controlling legal question and that immediate appeal would terminate litigation, but denied certification because Defendant failed to show a substantial ground for difference of opinion on the governing legal standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should certify its denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss for immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).	The Court correctly applied the "least sophisticated consumer" standard and properly found the collection letter could mislead consumers about the need to dispute in writing.	The Order presents a controlling legal question and warrants interlocutory review because the letter does not mislead; there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.	Denied. Court found a controlling issue and that appeal would terminate litigation, but no "substantial ground for difference of opinion" exists because the governing standard is settled and Defendant offered only disagreement, not conflicting precedent or novel law.

Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (interlocutory appeals generally disfavored)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (efficiency and district court management weigh against piecemeal appeals)
Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (three-part test for § 1292(b) certification)
Bachowski v. Usery, 545 F.2d 363 (§ 1292(b) certification is discretionary)
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (interlocutory review should be rare; only exceptional circumstances)
Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350 (affirming use of the "least sophisticated consumer" standard)