A request for certification to pursue an interlocutory appeal may be denied where the movants are unable to establish that interlocutory review would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. In re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liability Litigation, Master File No. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358 (SAS), M 21-88, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jan. 6, 2005.
The plaintiffs requested certification to pursue an interlocutory appeal, and the district court denied the motion. It held that under the legislative factors set forth in Section 1292 of Title 28, district courts have wide discretion to deny certification; the Second Circuit has directed that certification should be narrowly reserved for cases where an intermediate appeal would avoid protracted litigation. Under the circumstances of this case, the district court held that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that an interlocutory review would advance the termination of the litigation (such as advancing the time for trial or to shortening the time required for trial). In fact, the district court noted that an interlocutory appeal could cause the litigation to become more protracted and expensive because the plaintiffs more likely than not would continue to litigate their claims in state court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]