Madhavi Vuppalpati and her husband Anandhan Jayaraman are defeated in their attempt to derail the trial in Washington Court with this denial by Hon Madam Justice Marsha j. Pechman

1. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 28 U.S.C. §
1292(B) CERTIFICATION OF APPEALABILITY
OF ORDER- 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
KYKO GLOBAL INC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRITHVI INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
LTD, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. C13-1034 MJP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
28 U.S.C. § 1292(B)
CERTIFICATION OF
APPEALABILITY OF ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)
Certification of Appealability of Order. (Dkt. No. 303.) Having considered the Parties’ briefing
and the related record, the Court DENIES the motion.
Defendants, excluding Srinivas and Lalita Sista, request that the Court amend its Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 297)
so as to certify that order for an interlocutory appeal. (Dkt. No. 303 at 2.) Specifically,
Defendants identify the following issues as appropriate for immediate appeal: “whether Plaintiffs
should be judicially estopped from denying that the judgment entered in the U.S. District Court
Case 2:13-cv-01034-MJP Document 313 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 3

2. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 28 U.S.C. §
1292(B) CERTIFICATION OF APPEALABILITY
OF ORDER- 2
is final and whether the Adversary Proceeding that was consolidated into the First Lawsuit was
duplicative and brought for an improper purpose.” (Id.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), for a district court decision to warrant immediate
interlocutory review, that decision must involve a controlling question of law as to which there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion, an immediate appeal of which may materially
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Courts in this circuit use the following three-
part test when considering a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): “(1) whether a decision involves
a controlling issue of law; (2) whether there exists a substantial ground for difference of opinion;
and (3) whether immediate appeal may speed ultimate resolution of the case.” United States v.
Washington, 20 F. Supp. 3d 986, 1057 (W.D. Wash. 2013). Interlocutory appeals under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b) are to be permitted “sparingly” and only under “exceptional” and
“extraordinary” circumstances. Id., citing James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1068
n.6 (9th Cir. 2002), and U. S. Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th Cir. 1966).
Here, Defendants fail to demonstrate the existence of any of the factors discussed above.
First, Defendants have misidentified the controlling issues of law in the Court’s Order.
Defendants appear to have brought this motion with the understanding that this Court held “that
the [consent] judgment is not final and, therefore, not preclusive of the Adversary Proceeding.”
(Dkt. No. 308 at 2.) Defendants are mistaken. The Court held that the consent judgments were
“not final judgments on the merits of the claims asserted,” and concluded that because the
judgments were not on the merits, they did not preclude litigation of the claims in this
consolidated case under the doctrine of claim preclusion, also known as res judicata. (Dkt. No.
297 at 6 (emphasis in original).) The Court did not hold—and Plaintiffs have not asserted—that
the consent judgments are “not final.” (See Dkt. Nos. 287 at 9, 297 at 6, 304 at 6.)
Case 2:13-cv-01034-MJP Document 313 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 3

3. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 28 U.S.C. §
1292(B) CERTIFICATION OF APPEALABILITY
OF ORDER- 3
Marsha J. Pechman
Chief United States District Judge
Second, the Court does not find that there exists a substantial ground for difference of
opinion about how the doctrine of claim preclusion functions or on the applicability of Adams v.
California Department of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2010), to this consolidated
action. Lastly, the Court finds that an immediate appeal of the Order would slow resolution of
the case rather than speeding it. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2015.
A
Case 2:13-cv-01034-MJP Document 313 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 3