Roshan v. Lawrence
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-01235
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Roshan v. Lawrence, Judge Tigar denied Roshan’s request to certify orders for immediate appeal because two required conditions were missing.
Peyman Roshan’s ability to seek an immediate interlocutory appeal from the district court’s prior orders was affected; the underlying claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Roshan v. Lawrence, Peyman Roshan asked the court to certify an order for an immediate appeal before the case was finished. He argued that the State Bar’s immunity was an important legal issue and referred to another appeal involving the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which can limit federal review of certain state-court matters.
The court found that Roshan did not satisfy two requirements for this type of appeal. First, after the Ninth Circuit ruled that the State Bar is an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity, there was no longer a substantial disagreement about the controlling law. Second, Roshan did not show that an immediate appeal would speed up the end of this case. The court agreed with the defendants that the case was nearly resolved and might proceed more quickly in the district court.
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Roshan’s motion for certification under Section 1292(b). The ruling addressed only whether an immediate appeal should be allowed and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Roshan v. Lawrence · No. 4:21-cv-01235
- Jon Tigar
- Dec. 8, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Peyman Roshan moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for certification allowing an interlocutory appeal—that is, an appeal before a final decision in the case. The motion concerned prior orders, and the court stated that the final-judgment rule ordinarily limits appeals to final decisions.
Section 1292(b) allows a district court to certify a nonfinal order only when three requirements are met: the order involves a controlling question of law, there is substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the litigation’s ultimate resolution. The court explained that this procedure is narrow and reserved for exceptional cases.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Roshan had failed to establish two of the three requirements.
First, Roshan argued that whether the State Bar was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity was a controlling question. When Roshan filed his motion on December 3, 2023, that issue was pending before the Ninth Circuit in a case involving the State Bar. On December 6, 2023, the Ninth Circuit held, in part, that the State Bar is an arm of the state and entitled to sovereign immunity. The district court therefore concluded that, even if there had previously been substantial disagreement about the controlling law, that disagreement no longer existed.
Second, the court found that Roshan had not shown that an immediate appeal would materially advance this litigation. Roshan pointed to his pending appeal in another case involving the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court agreed with the defendants, however, that this case was already nearly resolved and that Roshan might benefit more quickly by allowing it to remain in the district court.
Disposition
For these reasons, the court denied Roshan’s motion for Section 1292(b) certification. The opinion did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.