ground for difference of opinion” on the issue. A party’s disagreement with the district court’s ruling is insufficient to demonstrate a “substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon, No. CVF046663RECLJO, 2005 WL 3470653, at *2 (E.D.Cal.2005). The moving party must make “some greater showing.” Napa Community Redevelopment Agency v. Continental Ins. Co., No. C-94-3284 DLJ, 1995 WL 714363, at *3 (N.D.Cal.1995). For example, courts have held this factor is satisfied when there is a lack of binding authority on an issue, which is subject to differing interpretations. See, e.g., Maestri v. Westlake Excavating Co., Inc., 894 F.Supp. 573, 578 (N.D.N.Y.1995); see also, Wells Fargo Bank v. Bourns, Inc., 860 F.Supp. 709, 717 (N.D.Cal.1994) (<HOLDING>). Third, an immediate appeal from the order
holding that stare decisis is not applicable unless the issue was squarely addressed in a prior decision holding that stare decisis does not apply unless the question at issue was squarely addressed in prior decisions holding that where the supreme court has expressly left an open question circuit precedent is immaterial and there is no clearly established law for the state court to have unreasonably applied recognizing that no federal circuit has addressed the issue holding the available precedent left substantial ground for difference of opinion  when the issues  have not been squarely addressed by the ninth circuit