State ex rel. Louie v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 921 F. Supp. 2d 1059

Attorney General of Hawaii filed six identical state-law UDAP and related claims against multiple credit card issuers in Hawaii state court.
Defendants removed each case to federal court asserting CAFA jurisdiction and complete preemption under the National Bank Act.
The federal court denied remand, holding removal proper based on complete preemption and that state-law claims are preempted.
Attorney General moved for certification of interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and for stay pending appeal.
Court considered whether interlocutory appeal presents controlling questions of law, substantial ground for difference of opinion, and would materially advance termination.
Court granted the motion, concluding federal jurisdiction is a threshold issue and the appeal could resolve central legal questions affecting the case and related actions, justifying a stay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Remand Order involve a controlling question of law?	Louis argues the definitions of 'interest' under the National Bank Act are unsettled and impact jurisdiction.	Defendants contend the issue is fact-intensive and not a pure question of law, relying on settled definitions.	Yes; the issue is a controlling question of law.
Is there substantial ground for difference of opinion on the controlling question of law?	AG contends multiple legal questions lack settled consensus, including interpretation of 'interest' and preemption for non-usury claims.	Defendants argue the standard is settled and the Court merely disagrees with application to facts.	Yes; there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.
Will an interlocutory appeal materially advance termination of the litigation?	Certification would resolve threshold jurisdiction, potentially terminating the case if Ninth Circuit reverses remand.	Appeal would delay proceedings and is unlikely to quickly terminate all cases.	Yes; it would materially advance termination.

In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1982) (interlocutory review available when it would avoid protracted litigation)
U.S. Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1966) (section 1292(b) to be used sparingly for controlling questions of law)
Chehalem Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., 2010 WL 952273 (D. Or. 2010) (pure question of law requirement for 1292(b))
Cross-County Bank v. Klussman, 2004 WL 966289 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (no preemption where no usury claim expressly alleged)
Hunter v. Beneficial Nat’l Bank USA, 947 F. Supp. 446 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (consideration of preemption with respect to lack of usury claim)