Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied Plaintiff’s motion to certify two interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court held that its evidentiary ruling concerning vocational expert Allison Ship Berry and its summary-judgment ruling on bad-faith and punitive-damages claims involved fact-specific applications of settled law, lacked substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and would not materially advance termination of the litigation. The court concluded that the breach-of-contract claim would require trial regardless of any interlocutory appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court's Rule 702 ruling concerning the vocational expert involved a controlling question of law warranting certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- Whether the district court's summary-judgment ruling on the bad-faith and punitive-damages claims involved a controlling question of law warranting interlocutory certification.
- Whether substantial grounds for difference of opinion existed concerning either challenged order.
- Whether immediate appellate review would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Holdings
- The ruling concerning the vocational expert did not present a controlling question of law because it was a fact-intensive, case-specific application of settled Rule 702 principles to the expert's qualifications, opinions, methodology, and record.
- The ruling did not present a controlling question of law because Mississippi law governing bad-faith insurance claims and the arguable-basis standard was settled, and the parties' dispute concerned the application of that law to the summary-judgment record.
- The plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial grounds for difference of opinion concerning either the Rule 702 ruling or the bad-faith summary-judgment ruling.
- Immediate appeal would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation because the breach-of-contract claim remained pending and would require a trial regardless of the outcome of an interlocutory appeal.
Key quotations
“The statute is to be used sparingly and reserved for exceptional circumstances.”
“Section 1292(b), however, does not authorize interlocutory review simply because a party believes the Court incorrectly applied settled law to a particular record.”
“Because trial on the breach-of-contract claim will be required regardless of the outcome of any interlocutory review, that showing has not been made here.”
Factual background
The challenged evidentiary ruling concerned vocational expert Allison Ship Berry's proposed opinions about diminished earning capacity and monetary loss calculations for a physician whose income was generated through an S-corporation. The challenged summary-judgment ruling addressed the plaintiff's bad-faith and punitive-damages claims arising from Vault's handling of the insurance claim, while the breach-of-contract claim remained pending for trial.
Procedural history
The district court previously granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to exclude the opinions of Allison Ship Berry and granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought certification of both orders for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court denied the motion because neither order involved a controlling question of law presenting substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and immediate appeal would not materially advance termination of the litigation.