Doe v. County of Kern et al

Filing 119

ORDER DENYING 114 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/21/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAMANTHA VAZQUEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01469 - JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
STAY
(Doc. 114)

16
17

Samantha Vazquez “seeks an immediate stay of all proceedings in this matter pending a

18

decision on her appeal” to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 114) Defendants oppose the stay, asserting Plaintiff

19

is not entitled to a stay. (Doc. 115) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request for a stay is

20

DENIED.

21

I.

22

Relevant Background
On December 18, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this

23

action. (Doc. 96, 97) Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants on December 29, 2017 (Doc.

24

105), after which Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. (Doc. 106)

25

Defendants each filed Bills of Costs on January 12, 2018. (Docs. 108, 110) Plaintiff now seeks

26

a stay of the proceedings in light of her appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit, proposing “that the

27

case be frozen in its present configuration while the appeal is pending,” requesting the Bills of Costs

28

not be evaluated by the Court at this time. (Doc. 114)
1

1

II.

Legal Standards

2

The Supreme Court explained the “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power

3

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and

4

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255

5

(1936). To evaluate whether to stay an action, the Court must the weigh competing interests that will

6

be affected by the grant or refusal to grant a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.

7

1962).
In general, Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the Court’s authority to

8
9

stay an action pending an appeal. Applying this Rule, the Ninth Circuit determined that when

10

evaluating a request for a stay due to a pending appeal, courts must consider: “(1) whether the stay

11

applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the

12

applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially

13

injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v.

14

Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (citations omitted); see also Maner v. County of Stanislaus, 2016

15

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149964 at *14-15 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (finding Rule 62 “govern[s] the court’s

16

authority to issue a stay pending an appeal,” and applying its standards to a request for “a stay of the

17

taxing of costs pending appeal”).

18

The party seeking a stay “bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.

19

681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). The Supreme Court explained, “If there is even a fair

20

possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else,” the party seeking the stay “must make

21

out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. The decision whether to grant or

22

deny a stay is committed to the Court’s discretion. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators

23

Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).

24

III.

25
26
27
28

Discussion and Analysis
Plaintiff argues that “the Court should exercise its discretion to impose a stay,” because “[t]here

is no reason to litigate costs now.” (Doc. 114 at 4) Plaintiff observes:
If Defendants prevail on their appeal, then they will doubtless seek (and Plaintiff will
oppose) costs in connection with their appeal. Since a new round of briefs and argument
will be required in that situation anyway, both sets of costs can be more efficiently
handled together at that time. Meanwhile, if Plaintiff prevails on her appeal, then
2

1

Defendants will no longer be conserved the “prevailing party” and there will be no issue
to litigate.

2
(Id.) Plaintiff contends judicial resources would be preserved through the entry of a stay, because she
3
4
5
6

intends to file “objections and opposition” to the defendants’ requests, including objecting on the
grounds that the imposition of costs “would be disruptive and a hardship,” such that no costs should be
awarded by the Court. (Id. at 5-6) Further, Plaintiff asserts that “no prejudice that would accrue to any
party in the event of an immediate stay,” and it “will not adversely affect any other issue in the case.”

7
(Id. at 7-8)
8
On the other hand, Defendants assert Plaintiff fails to address the Hilton factors addressing
9
10

whether a stay should be entered. (See Doc. 115) For example, Defendants observe Plaintiff fails “to
make any kind of showing that she is likely to succeed on the merits.” (Id. at 2, emphasis omitted)

11
Defendants contend,
12
13
14
15
16

[T]he Court looked to the definitions of sexual misconduct as defined by courts when
evaluating Vazquez’s constitutional violations claims. Vazquez v. County of Kern, WL
6447887 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017). In using these definitions, this Court held that it
was unable to find facts asserted by Vazquez that would support a claim for sexual abuse
under the Constitution. Id. at *6. Moreover, the Court was also unable to find any right to
privacy violations and cited to various Ninth Circuit cases that established the egregious
conduct that must occur for a privacy violation. Id. at 7-10. There is no reason to expect
that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal would find otherwise on any of Vazquez’s claims.
Therefore, Vazquez cannot make a showing that she will succeed on the merits.

17
18

(Id. at 3) Further, Defendants assert Plaintiff fails to show she would suffer an “irreparable harm” if the

19

case were not stayed, due to the Court evaluating the Bills of Costs filed by Defendants. (Id. at 3-4)

20

On the other hand, Defendants argue they would suffer an injury with the non-payment of taxable costs.

21

(Id. at 4) Finally, Defendants argue that “public policy favors prompt recovery of costs.” Id. (citing

22

Emblaze, 2015 WL 1304779 at *3)

23

In reply, Plaintiff contends she is “not making this motion under Rule 62(c), which on its face

24

applies to applications for stays of proceedings to enforce a judgment.” (Doc. 117 at 3) Rather, she

25

asserts “the motion is made pursuant to the Court’s discretionary power to stay proceedings as part of

26

its inherent, incidental powers to control its docket.” (Id.)

27

Previously, this Court has applied the Hilton factors in evaluating a plaintiff’s “request that the

28

bill of costs ‘be held in abeyance’ pending resolution of [her] appeal.” Whelan v. Donahue, 2014 U.S.
3

1

Dist. LEXIS 112522 at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2014). The court denied the stay, finding the plaintiff

2

failed to identify “any justification, much less legal authority, for her request. Id. at *4. Likewise, here

3

Plaintiff proffers no legal authority supporting the request that a stay of the proceedings—including the

4

Bills of Costs—should be imposed. Though Plaintiff argues a hardship, this argument would be

5

appropriately addressed in opposition to the Bills of Costs, and the Court declines to address the merits

6

of such an argument at this time.
Significantly, this Court— and others throughout the Ninth Circuit—have repeatedly declined

7
8

to enter a stay of the proceedings to allow an appeal to proceed. See, e.g., Whelan, 2014 U.S. Dist.

9

LEXIS 112522 at *4-5; Jones v. City of Orange Cove, 2010 WL 4875681 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010);

10

Salvatto v. County of Solano, 2007 WL 2428082 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Pixion Inc. v. PlaceWare Inc.,

11

2005 WL 3955889 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2005). The Court explained that a “disagreement with the

12

underlying judgment” was not a reason to impose a stay where there was a request for costs pending.

13

Salvato, 2007 WL 2428082 at *1.
Notably, in Jones, the plaintiff argued that “if the judgment is reversed on appeal, then the

14
15

taxation of costs also will be reversed.” Id., 2010 WL 4875681 at *2. Likewise, here, Plaintiff asserts

16

a stay should be entered because “[t]here is no reason to litigate costs now” and “if Plaintiff prevails on

17

her appeal, then Defendants will no longer be the ‘prevailing party’ and there will be no issue to

18

litigate.” (Doc. 114 at 4) However, as Defendants observe, as prevailing parties have “an interest in

19

prompt payment of its taxable costs.” (Doc. 115 at 4, quoting Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL

20

1304779 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015)). Moreover, as the Court explained in Jones, the potential

21

reversal of the taxation of costs following an appeal was “not a sufficient basis to stay.” Id., 2010 WL

22

4875681 at *2.
Finally, the Court understands that the plaintiff will assert that considerations of equity should

23
24

preclude an imposition of costs. Regardless of how this issue is resolved, either side would have the

25

right to appeal this novel position. Pursuing that appeal at this time would preserve the resources of the

26

Court of Appeals.

27

///

28

///
4

1
2

IV.

Conclusion
The Court finds Plaintiff fails to identify legally sufficient reasons for the Court to impose a stay

3

of these proceedings while her appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit. Based upon the foregoing,

4

the Court ORDERS:

5

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. 114) is DENIED.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 21, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5