AMI - Government Employees Provident Fund Management Company Ltd. v. Alphabet…

Background

On March 24, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The earlier order found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged a misstatement in Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s written testimony to Congress. The defendants then moved to certify questions for interlocutory appeal.

The defendants proposed questions about how courts should apply the requirement that securities-fraud plaintiffs plead facts supporting a strong inference that the defendant acted with intent to deceive, and about whether a court may interpret an allegedly false statement broadly when that interpretation conflicts with the statement’s context.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify an interlocutory appeal when an order involves a controlling question of law, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation. The court explained that interlocutory review is an exceptional departure from the usual rule that appellate review follows a final judgment. It also stated that certification is limited to questions of law, not questions about how a legal standard applies to the facts of a particular case.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that the defendants’ proposed questions did not satisfy those requirements. Although the defendants described their arguments as challenges to legal standards, their briefing showed that they were seeking review of how the earlier order applied those standards to this case. Regarding intent to deceive, the defendants disputed whether the factual allegations identified in the earlier order were sufficiently specific or too generalized. Regarding falsity, they disputed the earlier order’s interpretation of the surviving alleged misstatement in its context. The court treated both disputes as fact-specific questions that were not suitable for interlocutory appeal.

Ruling

The court denied the motion to certify questions for interlocutory appeal. In a footnote, the court also addressed the defendants’ statement that they sought reconsideration in the alternative. The court denied that request because the defendants had not sought permission to file a reconsideration motion and had not properly noticed one under the court’s local rules.