S.T.A. Parking Corp. v. General Star Indemnity Company

Background

General Star Indemnity Company asked the court to certify its December 23, 2019 decision for an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). This procedure allows a party, in limited circumstances, to seek an appeal before the district court enters a final judgment.

The earlier decision addressed S.T.A. Parking Corp.’s claim under New York Insurance Law § 3420. In that decision, the court looked at the substance of the claim rather than only the way it was labeled and found the claim inherently contractual. The earlier opinion also involved General Star’s motion to dismiss, although this order addresses only General Star’s request for certification of an immediate appeal.

Legal standard

The court explained that certification under § 1292(b) requires the moving party to establish three things: a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and that an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation. Even when those requirements are met, the district court has broad discretion to deny certification. Courts give especially significant weight to whether an immediate appeal would avoid prolonged litigation.

Court’s analysis

The court held that General Star had not shown that the statutory requirements were satisfied. General Star cited the same authorities it had cited in its original motion to dismiss and did not address controlling New York appellate decisions that supported the court’s approach of examining the essence of the claim. The court acknowledged that there was no directly controlling decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit or the New York Court of Appeals on the precise issue, but explained that disagreement among courts does not automatically satisfy § 1292(b).

The court also determined that an immediate appeal might not resolve the litigation. The parties still disputed when S.T.A. Parking’s § 3420 claim accrued, and S.T.A. Parking had separately pleaded a breach-of-contract claim. Even assuming that the statutory requirements were met, the court exercised its discretion to deny certification because further delay would not promote efficient resolution of the case.

Disposition

The court denied Defendant’s motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket Number 40.