MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Opinion and Order dated November 22, 2002, this court ruled that defendant
Section 1292(b) has three requirements. The district court’s order must “ [1] involve[ ] a controlling question of law; [2] as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion; and [3][the] immediate appeal [of which] may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
District courts retain “unfettered discretion to deny certification” of an interlocutory appeal even when a party has demonstrated that the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) are met.
Nat’l Asbestos Workers Med. Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
While it is true, however, that an immediate appeal, if resolved in SED’s favor, would “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation” with respect to defendant SED, since plaintiffs have also sued the City Board of Education (BOE), such resolution would not prevent a trial altogether.
Cf. Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc.,
Furthermore, the trial in this case is scheduled to begin December 11, 2002. It is clear from various correspondences sent by the parties that they have already begun preparing in earnest to commence on that date. Another delay,
in a case that has been pending since 1996,
is simply not warranted. It is altogether possible that defendant SED will be relieved of liability after trial sooner than it would be by the result of the interlocutory appeal that it seeks.
Cf. Jacques,
Finally, this court is mindful of the various admonitions to trial courts that it is a “basic [policy] of federal law to delay appellate review until a final judgment has been entered”
(Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda, Ltd.,
The parties are reminded that the trial in this matter will commence Wednesday,
SO ORDERED.
