ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND A STAY
ROBERT J. BRYAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on Defendant's Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Review and Stay Proceedings During the Appeal Process. Dkt. 17. The court has considered the relevant documents and the remainder of the file herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 9, 2013, Defendant Sia "Energoremonts Riga" ("SER") filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Wellons' complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or comity.
Dkt. 10. The court denied SER's motion. Dkt. 16.
On October 4, 2013, SER filed a motion for reconsideration and alternative motion to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal. Dkt. 17. In support of reconsideration, SER argued that the court's findings on personal jurisdiction were at odds with the law and the record. Id. at 2-9. SER also argued that the forum non conveniens factors weighed sufficiently in favor of dismissal. Id. at 9-10. On October 18, 2013, the Court denied SER's motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 20.
Now the Court addresses SER's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal. SER argued that this case satisfies the standard 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which requires a controlling question of law, a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that appeal may materially advance the termination of the litigation. Dkt. 17, at 10-13. Wellons filed its opposition on October 17, 2013, arguing that this case presents neither extraordinary circumstances nor substantial grounds for a difference of opinion. Dkt. 19. SER filed its reply on October 25, 2013. Dkt. 23.
A. Certification for Interlocutory Appeal.
1. Legal Standard.
SER argues that certification for interlocutory appeal is appropriate and would serve the interests of judicial economy. Dkt. 17, at 10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), three elements must be met for certification to be appropriate:
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 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 the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.
"The legislative history of § 1292 suggests that it ought to be used only in exceptional situations in which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and expensive litigation.'" United States v. Hoyte, 2012 WL 1898926 (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2012) (citing In ...