Emanuel McCray v. Microsoft Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denies Emanuel McCray’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court concludes that the challenged denial of default does not present a controlling question of law, lacks substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and would not materially advance the litigation.

Holdings

1. Certification was unavailable because the clerk's denial of entry of default involved a mixed question of law and fact concerning the application of Rule 55(a) to the procedural posture of the case, rather than a pure controlling question of law.
2. McCray failed to establish substantial ground for difference of opinion because his objection amounted to disagreement with the clerk's ruling, not an unresolved or genuinely disputed controlling legal issue.
3. Certification was improper because an interlocutory appeal would delay adjudication of the case and would not materially advance its ultimate termination.
4. Microsoft's appearance, motion to compel arbitration, and answer constituted pleading or otherwise defending sufficient to bar entry of default, even if the answer was untimely.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McCray's challenge to the clerk's denial of entry of default presented a controlling question of law suitable for interlocutory certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
2. Whether there was substantial ground for difference of opinion concerning the propriety of the clerk's denial of entry of default.
3. Whether an immediate interlocutory appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
4. Whether Microsoft's appearance, motion to compel arbitration, and answer precluded entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).

Disposition

other