Menzel v. Scholastic, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:17-cv-05499
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Menzel v. Scholastic, Inc., Judge Chen denied Scholastic’s requests to reconsider an earlier ruling or allow an immediate appeal because the case was near trial.
Scholastic, Inc.'s motion was denied, and the court did not certify the requested immediate appeal; Peter Menzel was also affected because the case remained on the path toward trial.
What happened
In Menzel v. Scholastic, Inc., Scholastic asked the court to reconsider an earlier ruling or certify that ruling for an immediate appeal before the case ended. The opinion does not identify the earlier ruling in detail.
The court rejected reconsideration, explaining that a decision about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not directly apply to the Copyright Act because the statutes use different language about filing deadlines. The court also denied certification for an immediate appeal because the case was essentially ready for trial, and an appeal would not speed up the end of the litigation.
Judge Edward M. Chen signed the January 17, 2020 order, which denied Scholastic’s motion and disposed of Docket No. 139.
The detailed version
- Menzel v. Scholastic, Inc. · No. 3:17-cv-05499
- Edward Chen
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
Scholastic, Inc. moved for reconsideration or, alternatively, for certification of an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court has entered a final judgment in the case. The opinion does not describe the earlier ruling that Scholastic wanted reconsidered in detail.
Reconsideration
The court denied reconsideration. It concluded that Rotkiske v. Klemm was not directly applicable because that case involved the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, while this case involved the Copyright Act. The court also noted that the two statutes use different language concerning the time for bringing an action: the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act refers to when the violation occurs, while the Copyright Act refers to when the claim accrued.
Interlocutory Appeal
The court also denied Scholastic’s request for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). That statute permits certification when an order involves a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation.
The court stated that, even assuming the first two conditions were satisfied, an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation. The case was essentially on the eve of trial. The court reasoned that allowing an appeal at that stage could delay the trial and the resolution of the case rather than speed them up.
Disposition
The court denied Scholastic’s motion for reconsideration or certification for an interlocutory appeal. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 139. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.