Filed: Aug. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2014
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the Court is Joseph Antonetti's ("Antonetti") Motion for Certificate of Appeal (Doc. #96 1 ), Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. #97), and Motion for Stay (Doc. #98). Pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. #101), Defendants filed an Opposition to the aforementioned Motions (Doc. #103). Antonetti filed a Reply (Doc. #104). Here, Antonetti seeks appellate review of the Court's Orders denying class certification (Doc. # 12 2 ), denying appointment of couns
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the Court is Joseph Antonetti's ("Antonetti") Motion for Certificate of Appeal (Doc. #96 1 ), Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. #97), and Motion for Stay (Doc. #98). Pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. #101), Defendants filed an Opposition to the aforementioned Motions (Doc. #103). Antonetti filed a Reply (Doc. #104). Here, Antonetti seeks appellate review of the Court's Orders denying class certification (Doc. # 12 2 ), denying appointment of counse..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Before the Court is Joseph Antonetti's ("Antonetti") Motion for Certificate of Appeal (Doc. #961), Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. #97), and Motion for Stay (Doc. #98). Pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. #101), Defendants filed an Opposition to the aforementioned Motions (Doc. #103). Antonetti filed a Reply (Doc. #104).
Here, Antonetti seeks appellate review of the Court's Orders denying class certification (Doc. # 122), denying appointment of counsel (Doc. # 45), denying appointment of experts (Doc. #45; Doc. #53), denying extension of time to amend complaint (Doc. #45), denying request for assistance in witness presence (Doc. #80), and consolidating the present case under related case number 3:10-cv-00158-LRH-WGC (Doc. #95). The Orders to which Antonetti refers are not final orders, appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nor do they involve a controlling question of law such that an immediate appeal would be warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Finally, they do not fall into the limited category of orders which are immediately reviewable under the collateral order exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as they are reviewable on appeal from final judgment. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (an otherwise unappealable order is considered "final" and therefore appropriate for immediate review if it (1) conclusively determines the disputed question, (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits, and (3) would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment); see also Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). Accordingly, his Motion shall be denied.
Additionally, Antonetti's Motion for Change of Venue and passing request for recusal are without merit. Antonetti fails to cite any law in support thereof or explain his entitlement to either request. His argument that the "system is rigged" simply does not warrant a change of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Accordingly, his Motion shall be denied.
Finally, because the Court denied interlocutory appeal, Antonetti's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is denied as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Antonetti's Motion for Certificate of Appeal (Doc. #96) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Antonetti's Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. #97) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Antonetti's Motion for Stay (Doc. #98) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
