Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC

Background

Andrea Tantaros filed a state-court action seeking a declaration that her arbitration agreement with Fox News was void under Section 7515 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. The defendants removed the action to federal court. Tantaros then asked the federal court to return the case to state court, arguing that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

In a December 17, 2019 order, the court denied the request to remand. It concluded that the state-law action necessarily raised a disputed and substantial federal issue: whether Section 7515’s restriction on mandatory arbitration clauses for sexual-harassment claims conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act. The court described this as federal jurisdiction under the Gunn-Grable doctrine, which can permit federal courts to hear certain state-law claims that necessarily raise important federal questions.

Tantaros then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for certification of an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court has entered a final judgment. The defendants opposed the motion.

Analysis

Section 1292(b) 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 held that all three requirements were satisfied.

First, the court found that the jurisdiction question was controlling. If an appellate court reversed the decision finding federal jurisdiction, the federal case would end and the action would return to state court. The court also found that the issue could affect many cases involving Section 7515 and similar state laws.

Second, the court found a substantial ground for disagreement. The question was one of first impression in the Second Circuit and involved difficult statutory interpretation, including whether Section 7515’s exception for inconsistency with federal law raises a federal issue. The court acknowledged that the issue was subject to legitimate dispute, although it continued to believe that federal jurisdiction existed.

Third, the court found that an immediate appeal could materially advance the litigation. Reversal would end the federal case and return Tantaros’s claims to New York Supreme Court. Proceeding in federal court while jurisdiction remained uncertain could otherwise require the parties to litigate the matter twice.

Ruling

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Tantaros’s motion for a certificate for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The opinion’s conclusion calls this a “certificate of appealability.” The ruling certified the jurisdiction question; it did not decide whether the Second Circuit would accept the interlocutory appeal or resolve the jurisdiction question itself.

The court also stayed the briefing schedule for the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The stay will be automatically lifted if no application is made to the Second Circuit within ten days, or if the Second Circuit denies the application.