Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer, Civ. A. No. 81-4712.

Decision Date08 December 1983
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 81-4712.
Citation575 F. Supp. 280
PartiesMAX DAETWYLER CORP. v. R. MEYER.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Manny D. Pokotilow, Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein & Cohen, Ltd., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Robert C. Podwill, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., Peter T. Cobrin, Stempler & Cobrin, New York City, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge.

On April 13, 1983, I entered an Order denying defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction. In a Memorandum, 560 F.Supp. 869, accompanying that Order I found that "were jurisdiction over defendant to be tested solely by his contacts with Pennsylvania, one would be hard pressed, on these facts, to find contacts sufficient to satisfy Fifth Amendment standards." But because plaintiff has asserted a claim under a federal statute against an alien defendant, I found that "jurisdiction may appropriately be determined on the basis of the alien's aggregated contacts with the United States as a whole, regardless of whether the contacts with the state in which the district court sits would be sufficient if considered alone." Cryomedics, Inc. v. Spembly, Limited, 397 F.Supp. 287, 290 (D.Conn. 1975). See Worldwide Marine Trading Corp. v. Marine Transport Service, 527 F.Supp. 581, 586-87 (E.D.Pa.1981). See also Alco Standard Corporation v. Benalal, 345 F.Supp. 14, 24-25 (E.D.Pa.1972). Applying this "national contacts" analysis, I found that defendant had sufficient aggregate contacts with the United States to warrant a finding that personal jurisdiction exists in this court.

Soon after that order was entered, defendant filed the present motion with this court seeking certification of the question of in personam jurisdiction for appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Following full briefing and oral argument on this issue, I find that certification is appropriate in this case.

As a general proposition it is, of course, the case that a matter may not be appealed to a court of appeals until a "final judgment" has been rendered by the district judge. However, Section 1292(b) creates an exception to the "final judgment" rule:

When a district judge, in making in a civil action, an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.

The court of appeals then has discretion to entertain, or decline to entertain the appeal.

The questions to be considered by a district judge when deciding a motion for certification are (1) whether the motion to be appealed involves a controlling question of law, (2) whether there is substantial ground for difference of opinion with respect to the resolution of the issue to be appealed, and (3) whether an immediate appeal from the district court's decision could materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. When evaluating these factors, the court must remember that certification is generally not to be granted. Section 1292(b) was created as a means by which courts could, under a limited set of circumstances, avoid problems created by the final judgment rule; Section 1292(b) was not designed to circumvent the general rule against piecemeal litigation. A motion for certification should not be granted merely because a party disagrees with the ruling of the district judge.

The parties have not seriously disputed the existence of the first and third of the three factors which must be found in order to certify a question for appeal.

The order sought to be appealed in the present case clearly involves a controlling question of law. A question is "controlling" if error in its resolution would warrant reversal of a final judgment or dismissal. Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 755 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 885, 95 S.Ct. 152, 42 L.Ed.2d 125 (1974). The determination from which defendant seeks to appeal—the existence of in personam jurisdiction— would, if incorrect, presumably necessitate dismissal. Thus, the first element of § 1292(b) is met.

Moreover, an immediate appeal from my ruling on in personam jurisdiction could materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. This is true, not only because the Court of Appeals would presumably direct dismissal of the suit if it disagreed with my analysis of jurisdiction, but also because a significant amount of time, funds, and effort will necessarily be expended by the parties and the court if this matter proceeds to resolution of the substantive merits of plaintiff's complaint. This case involves questions of patent law which will require extensive discovery, employment of expert witnesses, and investigation of numerous complex legal issues. A successful appeal from my jurisdictional decision before trial would resolve this matter without this cost to all involved in both time and resources. I therefore find that the delay inherent in appeal and the potential for multiple appeals (one now on the question of jurisdiction and another later following final judgment) are not so great as to outweigh the potential cost to the parties and the court if this matter proceeds to trial and is later dismissed by the Court of Appeals on jurisdictional grounds.

The second element of the certification analysis, and the one on which the parties most clearly differ, is whether there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion on the issue to be appealed. The question whether a "national...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • Electric Mobility Corp. v. Bourns Sensors/Controls
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 13, 2000
    ...of the District Court. See Kapossy v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 942 F.Supp. 996, 1001 (D.N.J.1996)(Orlofsky, J.)(citing Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer, 575 F.Supp. 280, 282 (E.D.Pa.1983); United States v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 95 F.R.D. 463, 471 In support of its motion for certification, Electr......
  • First American Corp. v. Al-Nahyan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • November 26, 1996
    ...for difference of opinion" sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements for an interlocutory appeal. See Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer, 575 F.Supp. 280, 283 (E.D.Pa.1983), certified question answered by, 762 F.2d 290 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 980, 106 S.Ct. 383, 88 L.Ed.2d 336 (1......
  • XTO Energy, Inc. v. ATD, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • May 31, 2016
    ...another does not, of itself, tend to show that there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion." Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer, 575 F.Supp. 280, 283 (E.D.Pa.1983) (Pollak, J.). An attorney's contention that one precedent rather than another should apply does not merit interlocutory ......
  • Max Daetwyler Corp. v. R. Meyer
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • June 18, 1985
    ...by Meyer, the district court certified the question of in personam jurisdiction for appeal to this court. See Max Daetwyler Corp. v. R. Meyer, 575 F.Supp. 280 (E.D.Pa.1983). We, in turn, granted Meyer's petition for leave to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b). The issue before this c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT