Opinion
98-CV-7386
December 23, 2002
OPINION
This is a purported class action suit against General Motors Corporation brought by three named representatives (two from Illinois and one from New York), each of whom owns a GM car on which the paint peeled away revealing ugly patches of exposed undercoat. Plaintiffs claim that a latent defect in the original painting process caused the peeling, and that GM knew and said nothing. The warranty period for each plaintiff's car has expired, and GM has refused to pay for new paint. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and "such further relief . . . as this Court deems just." Plaintiffs have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), to certify for interlocutory appeal my ruling denying their Motion for Voluntary Dismissal.
I should permit a party to seek an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order when I am of the opinion that the order "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). On policy grounds alone, it makes complete sense, in terms of saving mine and the Seventh Circuit's time, to grant this motion, but the law has unfortunately turned its favor against using such personal considerations as the basis for decision. Accordingly, when deciding a motion for certification, I must consider: (1) whether the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law; (2) whether there is substantial ground for difference of opinion on that question of law; and (3) whether an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See Richardson Electronics, Ltd. v. Panache Broadcasting of Pennsylvania, Inc., 202 F.3d 957, 958 (7th Cir. 2000).
Here, plaintiffs fail to satisfy the second element. The jurisdictional issues raised by plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal are not complex, unique or abstract issues that warrant interlocutory appeal. Gierum v. Kontrick, No. 01 C 4370, 2002 WL 226857, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 14, 2002) (denying leave to appeal when legal issue not was "complex, unique, or `abstract'"); Winn v. Symons International Group, Inc., No. IP 00 0310 C B/S, 2002 WL 826356 (S.D.Ind. May 1, 2002). Rather, the basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction is well-settled under Seventh Circuit law, as reaffirmed only weeks ago in Uhl v. Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc., 2002 WL 31420752 (7th Cir. Oct. 29, 2002) (defendant's cost of complying with injunctive relief must be considered, even in class actions, when determining whether the federal amount in controversy requirement is met). See also BEM I, L.L.C. v. Anthropolgie, Inc., 301 F.3d 548, 553 (7th Cir. 2002); In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 123 F.3d 599, 610 (7th Cir. 1997); The Barbers, Hairstyling for Men Women, Inc. v. Bishop, 132 F.3d 1203, 1206 (7th Cir. 1997); Trujillo v. Bridgestone-Firestone, Inc., No. 00 C 5407, 2000 WL 1690308, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 1, 2000); Jacobson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 98 C 742, 1999 WL 966432, at *2-3 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 30, 1999). In fact, one can see how well-settled the law is solely by the length of the string citation following the last sentence.
Despite my personal preference to dispose of this case as quickly as possible, Plaintiffs' Motion for § 1292 Certification is DENIED.
An oral hearing on plaintiffs' pending and fully briefed Amended Motion for Class Certification is not necessary. Accordingly, I will rule on the motion sometime after the new year.