LABMD, INC. v. TIVERSA HOLDING CORP., 2:15-cv-00092

LabMD sued Tiversa and individual defendants; portions of its original and amended complaints were dismissed by the district court (Jan. 8, 2016 and Nov. 23, 2016).
LabMD moved for certification under Rule 54(b) and for permission to bring an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Defendants opposed, arguing that any reinstated claims would return to the pleading stage and thus an immediate appeal would not materially advance termination.
The court framed the governing standard for § 1292(b) appeals via Katz: a controlling question of law, substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and that immediate appeal would materially advance termination.
The court emphasized the strong federal policy against piecemeal appeals and that § 1292(b) is reserved for exceptional circumstances where an immediate appeal would avoid protracted, expensive litigation.
The court concluded that LabMD failed to show the necessary likelihood that interlocutory review would materially advance final resolution and denied the motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether interlocutory certification under § 1292(b) is appropriate for the dismissed claims	LabMD: immediate appeal of dismissal orders is warranted	Defs: reversal would only return claims to pleading stage; appeal would be piecemeal and not advance termination	Denied — §1292(b) not satisfied
Whether the disputed questions present a "controlling question of law"	LabMD: the legal rulings on dismissal are controlling	Defs: plaintiff failed to identify a question that would materially save time or costs	Denied — no adequate showing of a controlling question
Whether there is substantial ground for difference of opinion on the rulings	LabMD: asserts disagreement over the dismissal rulings	Defs: disagreement would not yield immediate resolution and thus is not sufficient	Denied — no substantial grounds justifying interlocutory review
Whether an immediate appeal would materially advance termination of the litigation	LabMD: immediate review could resolve key legal issues	Defs: reversal would merely return case to pleading stage, so would not materially advance final resolution	Denied — likely would not materially advance termination

Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 559 F.2d 209 (3d Cir. 1977) (discussing limited availability of interlocutory appeals and policy against piecemeal appeals)
Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc) (articulating the three § 1292(b) requirements)
Caraballo-Seda v. Municipality of Hormigueros, 395 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting interlocutory appeals from denials of motions to dismiss encourage piecemeal litigation)
Zygmuntowicz v. Hospital Investments, Inc., 828 F. Supp. 346 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (noting § 1292(b) appropriate only where immediate appeal would avoid protracted, expensive litigation)