Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank

Background

The court considered Umpqua Bank’s motion to certify an earlier order denying summary judgment for interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court has finished the case. The court found that the motion could be decided without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for April 20, 2023.

The plaintiffs argued that the motion was untimely and that the case did not present a pure question of law appropriate for interlocutory review. Umpqua Bank argued that the proposed controlling question concerned what circumstantial evidence could support an aiding-and-abetting claim against a depository bank, considering policy issues discussed in cited California decisions. The opinion also states that Umpqua Bank had waited for the result of its petition seeking permission to appeal the class-certification order before filing this motion.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification requires the district court to identify an otherwise nonappealable order involving: (1) a controlling question of law; (2) substantial ground for difference of opinion about that question; and (3) an immediate appeal that may materially advance the litigation’s ultimate termination. The party seeking certification bears the burden of showing that these requirements are met. If the district court makes the required certification, the court of appeals may still decide whether to permit the appeal.

A controlling question is one whose resolution on appeal could materially affect the district-court litigation. A substantial ground for difference of opinion generally requires unclear controlling law, such as a dispute among federal appellate circuits when the relevant circuit has not ruled, complicated foreign-law issues, or a novel and difficult question of first impression. A party’s strong disagreement with the court’s ruling is not enough, and showing that settled law may have been applied differently is also insufficient.

Court’s analysis

The court did not decide that the motion was untimely. It stated that the statute contains no express time limit for such motions and found that Umpqua Bank had provided at least an explanation for its delay.

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that there might be an otherwise reviewable controlling question that could materially affect the litigation. It nevertheless found that Umpqua Bank had not sufficiently shown substantial ground for a difference of opinion. According to the court, Umpqua Bank relied on Ninth Circuit memorandum dispositions and district-court decisions that it claimed produced conflicting results in similar cases. The court characterized Umpqua Bank’s position as an argument that the law was clear but that the earlier summary-judgment order had applied it incorrectly.

The earlier order had explained why the summary-judgment record was sufficient to show a triable issue of fact about whether Umpqua Bank had actual knowledge, based on inferences a fact finder could draw from circumstantial evidence. The court held that Umpqua Bank’s disagreement with that analysis, and its claimed conflicts among other decisions, did not establish a substantial ground for disagreement about a controlling legal question.

Disposition

The court denied Umpqua Bank’s motion to certify the order denying summary judgment for interlocutory appeal. The court did not certify that order under § 1292(b).