M.G.
M.G. v. Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Miller, J.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Defendants Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc. (“Metropolitan”) and J.C. move for Certification of Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) and to Stay the Action (“Motion”). Plaintiffs in all three actions, M.G, F.M., LA, J.M., L.G., F.B., M.N., R.G., L.S., E.R., M.D., M.T., E.S., oppose the Motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the Motion.
BACKGROUND
The court incorporates its October 24, 2014, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions for Summary Judgment (“Summary Judgment Order”).
DISCUSSION
In order to certify an order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b), the court must find that an in-' terloeutory order: (1) involves a controlling question of law; (2) there is substantial ground for difference of opinion on that question; and (3) a resolution of the legal issue will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b). “A question of law may be deemed ‘controlling’ if its…