# State of Washington v. The GEO Group Inc > District Court, W.D. Washington · September 20, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10704629 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, W.D. Washington - **Decided:** September 20, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10704629 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, C17-5806RJB 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida 11 corporation, 12 Defendant. 13 C17-5769 RJB UGOCHUKWU GOODLUCK 14 NWAUZOR, on behalf of all those ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION similarly situated, and FERNANDO FOR AN ORDER CERTIFYING 15 AGUIRRE-URBINA, individually, INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND TO STAY 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, 19 Defendant. 20 21 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant The GEO Group, Inc.’s 22 (“GEO”) Motion for an Order Certifying an Interlocutory Appeal and Motion to Stay Litigation 23 Pending Appeal (filed in Washington v. The GEO Group, Inc., U.S. District Court for the 24 1 Western District of Washington case number 17-5806, Dkt. 538 and in Nwauzor v. The GEO 2 Group, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-5769, Dkt. 3 426). The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion, testimony heard and 4 other evidence presented during the 11-day trial, and the remaining record. 5 These two consolidated cases arise from Plaintiffs’ claims that GEO failed to pay 6 immigration detainees in its Voluntary Work Program (“VWP”) the Washington minimum wage 7 at its Northwest Detention Center, now renamed Northwest ICE Processing Center. One case, 8 Nwauzor, case number 17-5769, is a class action. The other case is brought by the State of 9 Washington. State, case number 17-5806. 10 On August 6, 2018, the class was certified and the class defined as “[a]ll civil 11 immigration detainees who participated in the Voluntary Work Program at the Northwest 12 Detention Center at any time between September 26, 2014, and the date of final judgment in this 13 matter.” Nwauzor, case number 17-5769, Dkt. 114, at 4. On June 1, 2021, trial began. After an 14 11-day trial, jury deliberations over three days, and a declaration from the jury that they could 15 not agree on a verdict, a mistrial was declared on June 17, 2021. State, case number 17-5806, 16 Dkt. 487 and Nwauzor, case number 17-5769, Dkt. 376. The next trial is set to begin on October 17 12, 2021. 18 GEO now moves for an order certifying an interlocutory appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of 19 Appeals the following questions: 20 (1) Whether the District Court is required to consider federal case law decided under the [“Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)] in interpreting the definition of 21 “employee” under the [ Washington Minimum Wage Act (“WMWA”)]; and 22 (2) Whether a determination that federal detainees are “employees” under the provisions of the WMWA violates established principles of intergovernmental 23 immunity. 24 1 If the appeal is certified, GEO also moves to stay the case until after a decision on the appeal is 2 issued. 3 Both the State and the class oppose the motion. State, case number 17-5806, Dkt. 551 and 4 Nwauzor, case number 17-5769, Dkt. 440. GEO has replied (State, case number 17-5806, Dkt. 5 552 and Nwauzor, case number 17-5769, Dkt. 441) and the motion is ripe for decision. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): 8 When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a 9 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 10 the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action 11 may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, 12 however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge 13 thereof shall so order. 14 “The legislative history of § 1292(b) indicates that this section was to be used only in exceptional 15 situations in which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and expensive 16 litigation.” In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982)). 17 GEO’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of one or both of the proposed questions 18 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (State, case number 17-5806, Dkt. 538 and Nwauzor, case 19 number 17-5769, Dkt. 426) should be denied. GEO fails to demonstrate that the orders on the 20 issues it seeks to appeal immediately “involve[] a controlling question of law as to which there is 21 a substantial ground for difference of opinion.” In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, at 1026. On 22 GEO’s first question (whether FSLA case law in must be considered in interpreting “employee” 23 under the WMWA), the Washington statute and courts have provided the necessary guidance and 24 appropriate changes or additions to the Court’s jury instructions will be considered as part of the 1 second trial. As to the second question regarding intergovernmental immunity, GEO disputes 2 the Court’s application of established legal principles. While GEO clearly does not agree with 3 the Court’s rulings on the issues presented in the proposed questions, “a party’s strong 4 disagreement with the Court's ruling is not sufficient for there to be a substantial ground for 5 difference.” Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010)(internal quotation 6 marks and citations omitted). 7 Further, GEO does not show that an immediate appeal would “materially advance the 8 ultimate termination of the litigation.” In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, at 1026. Certifying an 9 appeal at this point would delay trial, which is set to begin in less than a month. In its discussion 10 of an interlocutory appeal’s efficiency, GEO does not acknowledge the possibility that its appeal 11 might fail entirely. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals might affirm the rulings of this Court, 12 which would mean the trial must still be held, likely over a year from now. GEO fails to show 13 that it cannot wait a month or so to file its appeal - if it deems that is appropriate. (GEO may 14 well prevail at trial, which would moot the necessity for a GEO appeal.) 15 As with the denial of the motion to certify the interlocutory appeal, the motion to stay the 16 case should also be denied. 17 ORDER 18 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 19  GEO’s Motion for an Order Certifying an Interlocutory Appeal and Motion to 20 Stay Litigation Pending Appeal (filed in Washington v. The GEO Group, Inc., 21 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-5806, 22 Dkt. 538 and in Nwauzor v. The GEO Group, U.S. District Court for the Western 23 District of Washington case number 17-5769, Dkt. 426) IS DENIED. 24 1 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 2 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 3 Dated this 20th day of September, 2021. A 4 5 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10704629. Public record. Not legal advice.