Juliana v. United States - No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88122 (D. Or. June 8, 2017)

Rule:

Whether to grant expedited hearing at all is a trial management decision committed to the discretion of the district court.

Facts:

On November 10, 2016, the district court issued an opinion and order denying federal defendants' and intervenor defendants' motions to dismiss. On March 7, 2017, federal defendants filed a motion to certify the November 10 opinion and order for immediate appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). That same day, federal defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings in the case pending consideration of the motion to certify. A magistrate judge denied the request for a stay pending consideration of the motions to certify. Defendants appealed. 

Issue:

Did the magistrate judge correctly deny the defendant’s request for a stay pending consideration of the motions to certify? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that a magistrate judge properly denied the defendants' request for a stay pending consideration of the motions to certify because defendants had received expedited consideration certification, their reasons were insufficient to give defendants any right to expedited consideration at all, much less a right to more expedited consideration than the court had already provided, the government's belief that it was legally entitled to an immediate ruling on a motion it submitted three months ago was rather ironic given that it waited four months to file the request for interlocutory certification in the first place, and the standard of review did not need to be resolved inasmuch as interlocutory appeal was not warranted.