United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Athens Division
February 13, 2015
DAVID A. WOOD, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs,
UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant.
CLAY D. LAND, District Judge.
The Court previously granted Defendant Unified Government of Athens Clarke-County, Georgia's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Order, Jan. 13, 2015, ECF No. 22. Plaintiffs ask that the Court amend its Order to certify it for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The motion to amend (ECF No. 24) is granted, and the Court's January 13, 2015 Order is hereby amended to include the following language:
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify its Order for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In general, appeal under § 1292(b) is appropriate "only on (1) pure questions of law, (2) which are controlling of at least a substantial part of the case, (3) and which are specified by the district court in its order, (4) and about which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, (5) and whose resolution may well substantially reduce the amount of litigation necessary on remand." McFarlin v. Conseco Servs., LLC, 381 F.3d 1251, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004); accord 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
It appears that neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Georgia Supreme Court has directly addressed the issues presented by Athens's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Those issues are controlling of a significant part of this action, and the Court finds that substantial ground for difference of opinion may exist as to the controlling legal issues that formed the basis of the Court's ruling. The Court also finds that the resolution on appeal of the issues presented in the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings may substantially reduce the amount of litigation necessary on remand. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal.
The deadline for the parties to submit an amended joint proposed Scheduling/Discovery Order is stayed pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.