HAN KIM v. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA Cite as 950 F.Supp.2d 29 (D.D.C. 2013) [7] Although the plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to support jurisdiction under the FSIA, a district court ruling on whether facts in a complaint adequately allege a basis for invoking the torture exception under the FSIA should be immediately appealable. See Price, 294 F.3d at 92 (allowing Libya to immediately appeal a district court decision rejecting Libya’s argument that the facts alleged in the complaint do not bring the case within an FSIA immunity exception). Moreover, this case qualifies for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). That statute provides that an interlocutory appeal may be certified to the court of appeals when a district judge TTT 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). ‘‘Under § 1292(b), a controlling question of law is one that would require reversal if decided incorrectly or that could materially affect the course of litigation with resulting savings of the court’s or the parties’ resources[ ]’’ and ‘‘include[s] issues that would terminate an action if the district court’s order were reversed.’’ APCC Servs., Inc. v. Sprint Communic’ns Co., L.P., 297 F.Supp.2d 90, 95–96 (D.D.C.2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, the determination of subject matter jurisdiction qualifies as a controlling question of law. See id. Also, there is ‘‘a substantial ground for difference of opinion’’ about whether plaintiffs have presented the requisite quantum of evidence to show that Reverend Kim was tortured under the FSIA. Cf. Doe v. Qi, 349 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1312–17 (N.D.Cal.2004) (discussing Price and collecting cases applying the standard for sufficient factual allegations to allege torture under the FSIA). Finally, ‘‘[w]hen 43 there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion as to a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, courts regularly hold that immediate appeal may ‘materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.’ ’’ Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 620 F.Supp.2d 51, 55 (D.D.C.2009). Certification for an interlocutory appeal in this case, then, is warranted. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Subject matter jurisdiction over this action depends in part upon an adequate demonstration that Reverend Kim was tortured following his abduction. Plaintiffs have not met to the court’s satisfaction the high standard recognized by this circuit under the FSIA for showing that Reverend Kim was tortured. Thus, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The motion for default judgment will be denied, and the case will be certified for interlocutory appeal on the issue of the requisite quantum of evidence for sufficiently alleging torture under the FSIA. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion [14] for default judgment be, and hereby is, DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this case be, and hereby is, certified for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) because it involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation. It is further ORDERED that all proceedings in this case be stayed upon the application of the plaintiffs for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of the finding that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA. ,