HDtracks.com, LLC v. 7digital Group PLC
1:18-cv-05823
S.D.N.Y.Feb 20, 2020Background
- Case: HDtracks.com, LLC v. 7digital Limited, No. 18 Civ. 5823 (JFK), before Judge John F. Keenan.
- On Feb. 18, 2020 HDT moved to certify the Court's Feb. 6, 2020 order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- § 1292(b) requires (1) a controlling question of law, (2) substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (3) that immediate appeal may materially advance termination of the litigation.
- The Court emphasized that interlocutory appeals are strongly disfavored and § 1292(b) is an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances.
- The Court found HDT did not meet the § 1292(b) standards, denied the motion, directed the parties to proceed to discovery before Magistrate Judge Parker, and ordered a joint proposed case management order by March 9, 2020. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HDT) | Defendant's Argument (7digital) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Feb. 6 order presents a controlling question of law | The order involves a controlling legal question warranting immediate review | The order does not present a controlling or novel legal question | Court: HDT failed to show the §1292(b) standard is met |
| Whether there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion | There is substantial disagreement over the legal issue | No substantial ground for difference of opinion exists | Court: No substantial ground shown |
| Whether immediate appeal would materially advance termination | Immediate appeal would materially advance and conserve resources | Interlocutory appeal would not materially advance termination; appeals are disfavored | Court: Immediate appeal would not materially advance termination; certification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Sec. & Derivative Litig., 986 F. Supp. 2d 524 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (discussing §1292(b) standards and that interlocutory appeals are disfavored)
- Casey v. Long Island R.R., 406 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2005) (movant must show all three §1292(b) criteria)
- Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 101 F.3d 863 (2d Cir. 1996) (federal policy favors delaying appellate review until final judgment)
- In re Ambac Fin. Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 693 F. Supp. 2d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (§1292(b) limited to exceptional circumstances)