DIANA MCLAUGHLIN, M.D. PA
v.
SUNSHINE STATE HEALTH PLAN, INC. AND DWANNA G HILL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motions to certify an interlocutory appeal and to reopen the case, finding no basis for such actions.
[1] A motion to stay proceedings is moot when the case is already closed.
[2] A party seeking to reopen a closed case during the pendency of an appeal must provide a basis for doing so.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court may certify an interlocutory order only if the 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[.]"”
Establishes the statutory requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for certifying an interlocutory appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed motions to certify an interlocutory appeal of prior orders compelling arbitration and denying reconsideration, and also sought to reop…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Materially Advance The Ultimate Termination Of The Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs “Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal of Motion to Compel Arbitration; Motion to Re-Open Case and Motion to Stay All Proceedings During Appeal of Preliminary Injunction” (Doc. 38) and "Notice of Appeal and Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal” (Doc. 40). Upon review of the motions, case file, and record, the Court finds as follows:
First, considering Plaintiffs “Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal of Motion to Compel Arbitration; Motion to Re-Open Case and Motion to Stay All Proceedings during Appeal of Preliminary Injunction,” the Court notes that because this case is closed, there is no need to stay the proceedings. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to provide any basis to reopen the case during the pendency of an appeal, and a
Page 1 of 3
stay pending appeal would require the closure of the case rather than a reopening of the case. Plaintiffs motion is therefore denied.
As to Plaintiff's requests to certify interlocutory appeal of the Court's order compelling arbitration and order denying reconsideration based on evidence spoilage, federal jurisdiction of appeals generally requires a final judgment in the district court. See Freyre v. Chronister, 910 F. 3d 1371, 1377 (11th Cir. 2018). However, there are some exceptions for certain interlocutory appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292; McFarlin v. Canseco Servs., LLC, 381 F. 3d 1251, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004) (recognizing 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) as one of the statutory exceptions to the final judgment rule). A district court may certify an interlocutory order only if the 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[.]" See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); McFarlin, 381 F. 3d at 1255. Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden here, and the Court is not of the opinion that its Orders meet the statutory requirements for a permissive interlocutory appeal. The Orders do not involve a "controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion." In addition, an immediate appeal here would not "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Interlocutory review is an extraordinary remedy, and it is not appropriate here. See U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property, 767 F. 2d 1495, 1498 (11th Cir. 1985) (recognizing strong presumption against interlocutory appeals); see also McFarlin, 381 F. 3d at 1265 (acknowledging that "the great bulk of
Page 2 of 3
[appellate] review must be conducted after final judgment, with § 1292(b) interlocutory review being a rare exception."). Plaintiffs motion is therefore denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Plaintiff's "Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal of Motion to Compel Arbitration; Motion to Re-Open Case and Motion to Stay All Proceedings During Appeal of Preliminary Injunction” (Doc. 38) and “Notice of Appeal and Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal” (Doc. 40) are denied.
(2) This case remains closed.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 6th day of January, 2026.
Thp.Bl TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McFARLIN v. Conseco Servs., LLC, 381 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2004)
- United States v. ONE Parcel OF Real Prop. With Bldgs., 767 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Freyre v. Chronister, 910 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2018)