STEINER LLC v. EBAY INC (2025)

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Ina STEINER, David Steiner, and Steiner Associates, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. EBAY, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action 21-cv-11181-PBS

Decided: January 16, 2025

Andrew G. Finkelstein, Pro Hac Vice, Brian D. Acard, Pro Hac Vice, Kenneth B. Fromson, Pro Hac Vice, Lawrence D. Lissauer, Pro Hac Vice, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh, NY, Bradley Silverman, Pro Hac Vice, Todd S. Garber, Pro Hac Vice, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, White Plains, NY, Marc A. Diller, Diller Law, LLP, Boston, MA, Rosemary C. Scapicchio, Law Office of Rosemary C. Scapicchio, Boston, MA, Christopher R. Murphy, Scalli Murphy Law, P.C., Everett, MA, for Plaintiffs Ina Steiner, David Steiner. Andrew G. Finkelstein, Pro Hac Vice, Brian D. Acard, Pro Hac Vice, Kenneth B. Fromson, Pro Hac Vice, Lawrence D. Lissauer, Pro Hac Vice, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh, NY, Bradley Silverman, Pro Hac Vice, Todd S. Garber, Pro Hac Vice, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, White Plains, NY, Jillise M. McDonough, Rosemary C. Scapicchio, Law Office of Rosemary C. Scapicchio, Boston, MA, Marc A. Diller, Diller Law, LLP, Boston, MA, Christopher R. Murphy, Scalli Murphy Law, P.C., Everett, MA, for Plaintiff Steiner Associates, LLC. Daniel J. Feith, Pro Hac Vice, Emily Rose, Pro Hac Vice, Lucas Croslow, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, David A. Goldenberg, Pro Hac Vice, Scott T. Nonaka, Pro Hac Vice, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jack W. Pirozzolo, Kathryn Lundwall Alessi, Sidley Austin LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant eBay Inc. Tory A. Weigand, Kimberly Iverson, Scott D. Burke, Morrison, Mahoney, & Miller LLP, Boston, MA, Matthew J. Holmes, Adler Cohen, Boston, MA, for Defendant Progressive F.O.R.C.E. Concepts, LLC. Abbe David Lowell, Pro Hac Vice, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Washington, DC, Andrew Tauber, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Washington, DC, Kelly A. Librera, Pro Hac Vice, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY, Martin G. Weinberg, Martin G. Weinberg, PC, Boston, MA, Michael Pabian, Michael Pabian Law Office, LLC, Boston, MA, for Defendant Devin Wenig. Caz Hashemi, Pro Hac Vice, Nick Guenther, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, Lon F. Povich, Anderson & Kreiger LLP, Boston, MA, Melissa Mills, Pro Hac Vice, Trevor Templeton, Pro Hac Vice, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Los Angeles, CA, Morris J. Fodeman, Pro Hac Vice, Staci E. Cox, Pro Hac Vice, Michelle Mixue Dang, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., New York, NY, Kevin G. Heiner, Pro Hac Vice, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant Steven Wymer. William W. Fick, Daniel N. Marx, Fick & Marx LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant James Baugh. Daniel K. Gelb, Gelb & Gelb, LLP, Beverly, MA, for Defendant David Harville. Miranda Kane, Pro Hac Vice, Mark Conrad, Conrad Metlitzky Kane LLP, San Francisco, CA, Douglas S. Brooks, Libby Hoopes Brooks & Mulvey, P.C., Boston, MA, Jason M. Strojny, DLA Piper LLP U.S., Boston, MA, for Defendant Brian Gilbert. Christina N. Lindberg, Tracy A. Miner, Miner Siddall LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Philip Cooke. Alexandra H. Deal, Youngik Paik, Paik Deal, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Pro se litigant Stephanie Popp. Annika R. Liepelt, Pro Hac Vice, Berliner Cohen LLP, San Jose, CA, Michael S. Day, Torres, Scammon, Hinks & Day, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Veronica Zea. Andrew O'Connor, Brien T. O'Connor, Jesse Coulon, William L. Roberts, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Wendy Jones. Stephanie Popp, Dallas, TX, Pro Se. Stephanie Stockwell, Santa Cruz, CA, Pro Se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Defendant eBay Inc. (“eBay”) moves this Court to certify its Memorandum and Order, issued on November 1, 2024, for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Dkt. 516). The Court allowed in part and denied in part the parties’ partial motions for summary judgment as to punitive damages. In a nutshell, I held that Massachusetts law governs the availability of punitive damages for some of plaintiffs’ claims but California law governs claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy (Dkt. 506). The Court assumes familiarity with its prior opinion, Steiner v. eBay, Inc., ––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, –––– (D. Mass. 2024) [2024 WL 464877].

Interlocutory appeals under § 1292(b) require that the underlying order (1) involves “a controlling question of law,” (2) presents a “substantial ground for difference of opinion,” and (3) “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Caraballo-Seda v. Mun. of Hormigueros, 395 F.3d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)). “[C]ertification under § 1292(b) should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.” Id. (quoting Palandjian v. Pahlavi, 782 F.2d 313, 314 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). Here, eBay has failed to establish, at minimum, the second and third requirements.

A substantial ground for difference of opinion is satisfied when the issue presents “difficult and pivotal questions of law not settled by controlling authority.” Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 957 F. Supp. 327, 330 (D. Mass. 1997) (quoting McGillicuddy v. Clements, 746 F.2d 76, 76 n. 1 (1st Cir. 1984)); see In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig., 235 F. Supp. 3d 317, 319 (D. Mass. 2017). A party's mere disagreement with a court's ruling or its application of law to a specific set of facts is insufficient. See United Air Lines, Inc. v. Gregory, 716 F. Supp. 2d 79, 92 (D. Mass. 2010).

To establish a substantial ground for difference of opinion, Defendants rely heavily on a forty-year-old opinion, Computer Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Qantel Corp., 571 F. Supp. 1365 (D. Mass. 1983), aff'd, 740 F.2d 59 (1st Cir. 1984). However, that case was decided under a different Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws provision. Id. at 1368 (“The parties agree that the general provision of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws most relevant to this inquiry is Section 148 [relating to claims of fraud and misrepresentation].”). Furthermore, eBay fails to cite a single First Circuit case relying on Qantel for a conflict-of-law analysis. Instead, the only authority eBay identifies -- a district court case -- acknowledges that certain cases may warrant a “patchwork approach.” Value Partners S.A. v. Bain & Co., 245 F. Supp. 2d 269, 278 (D. Mass. 2003). My prior holding, that the unique facts of this case justify such an approach, is consistent with that reasoning. Accordingly, eBay fails to show a substantial ground for difference of opinion.

But the real donnybrook is that this appeal will not advance the ultimate termination of this aged litigation. The suit was filed on July 21, 2021. Multiple motions for summary judgment remain pending, and the Court has yet to determine which issues will be resolved as a matter of law. For example, eBay has filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of ratification, a statutory prerequisite to punitive damages under California law. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b); Glovatorium, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 684 F.2d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1982).

Defendants claim that an interlocutory appeal will facilitate settlement with eBay, particularly if the ruling eliminates the possibility of punitive damages. Currently, Plaintiffs are seeking an eye-popping request in punitive damages. While the prospect of limiting damages might promote settlement, the timeline for an interlocutory appeal -- likely exceeding one year -- renders this argument unpersuasive. By the time such an appeal is resolved, any trial would likely be over, and a full appeal on a full record could go forward thereafter.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (Dkt. 516).

SO ORDERED.

Saris, United States District Judge

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law