June Medical Services LLC v. Gee
3:16-cv-00444
M.D. La.Feb 23, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs (abortion-providing doctors and a clinic) sued to challenge several Louisiana laws governing abortion services, including H.B. 1019.
- H.B. 1019 requires doctors to provide patients seeking abortions with an informational document about fetal genetic abnormalities.
- Defendants moved to dismiss several claims; the Court denied dismissal as to the H.B. 1019 ripeness challenge, finding that claim ripe for adjudication.
- Defendants sought interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of the Court’s ruling that the H.B. 1019 claim is ripe.
- The State (LDH) is expected to develop and promulgate the informational document required by H.B. 1019, which could moot the ripeness dispute once issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ripeness of the H.B. 1019 challenge presents a controlling question of law for § 1292(b) certification | The claim is ripe and may proceed now | Ripeness is not a controlling issue suitable for interlocutory appeal | Ripeness is a legal question but not sufficiently controlling because resolving it would have only marginal impact on the broader litigation |
| Whether there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion on ripeness | The Court correctly found ripeness under established doctrine | The Court’s ripeness ruling is wrong and merits immediate appellate review | Disagreement alone is insufficient; no substantial ground for difference of opinion shown given settled ripeness doctrine |
| Whether an immediate interlocutory appeal would materially advance termination of the litigation | Immediate review could resolve the H.B. 1019 claim and aid resolution | An interlocutory appeal would not materially advance termination because many issues remain | Appeal would not materially advance termination; interlocutory review would likely impede rather than speed resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Aparicio v. Swan Lake, 643 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir. 1981) (§ 1292(b) requirements must all be met before certification)
- Ala. Labor Council v. Alabama, 453 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1972) (interlocutory appeal standards under § 1292(b))
- Clark-Dietz & Assocs.-Engineers, Inc. v. Basic Const. Co., 702 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1983) (interlocutory appeals are exceptional; final judgment rule favors avoiding piecemeal appeals)
- Tesco v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 2d 755 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (defining when an issue is "controlling" based on its potential impact on litigation)
- Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010) (examples of when substantial grounds for difference of opinion exist)
- Ryan v. Flowserve Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d 718 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (mere disagreement with a district court is insufficient to establish a substantial ground for difference of opinion)
- Ahrenholz v. Board of Trustees, 219 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2000) (interlocutory appeals should materially speed litigation to justify certification)
Disposition: The motion for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Doc. 89) is DENIED.