National Association of Wheat Growers et al v. Zeise et al

Filing 109

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/5/2018 GRANTING 104 Motion to Stay. All proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED pending issuance of opinions by the 9th Circuit in American Beverage Association v. City and County of Sa n Francisco, No. 16-16072, and CTIA-The Wireless Association v. City of Berkeley, No. 16-15141. When the 9th Circuit has issued opinions in both those cases, counsel shall take the necessary steps to have this matter placed back on the calendar for further status conference. The briefing schedule and hearing date of 1/22/2019 on the cross-motions for summary judgment are VACATED. (York, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS; NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; UNITED STATES DURUM GROWERS ASSOCIATION; WESTERN PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATION; IOWA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION; SOUTH DAKOTA AGRI-BUSINESS ASSOCIATION; NORTH DAKOTA GRAIN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; MISSOURI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; MONSANTO COMPANY; ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF MISSOURI; AGRIBUSINESS ASSOCIATION OF IOWA; CROPLIFE AMERICA; AND AGRICULTURAL RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, 23 24 25 26 v. LAUREN ZEISE,IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT; and XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, 27 28 2:17-2401 WBS EFB ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY Plaintiffs, 21 22 CIV. NO. Defendants. 1 1 ----oo0oo---- 2 Before the court is defendant Xavier Becerra’s Motion 3 to Stay Proceedings. 4 on the motion on September 4, 2018. 5 (Docket No. 104.) The court held a hearing The power to stay proceedings “is incidental to the 6 power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 7 cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, 8 for counsel, and for litigants.” 9 248, 254 (1936). Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. Here, the court, in granting a preliminary 10 injunction, relied on the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of 11 Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of 12 Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985), in determining that the required 13 warning label for glyphosate would not be “purely factual and 14 uncontroversial.” 15 Wireless Association v. City of Berkeley, 854 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 16 2017), has since been vacated by the Supreme Court for further 17 proceedings in light of National Institute of Family & Life 18 Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018). 19 recent decision also interpreting Zauderer’s “purely factual and 20 uncontroversial” requirement, American Beverage Association v. 21 City and County of San Francisco, 871 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2017), 22 was called en banc and is scheduled for oral argument later this 23 month. 24 The primary case the court relied on, CTIA-The Moreover, a more Because CTIA and American Beverage concern the 25 interpretation and application of Zauderer’s “purely factual and 26 uncontroversial” requirement, new decisions in those cases would 27 assist the court in deciding any motion for summary judgment 28 filed by the parties in this case. 2 Further, the court has 1 already granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of 2 the warning requirement as to glyphosate in this case. 3 Plaintiffs identify no prejudice from a stay other than 4 uncertainty to their members due to further delay.1 5 uncertainty is insufficient to outweigh the savings of time and 6 effort for the court and the parties that may be gained from 7 staying this case pending further guidance from the Ninth Circuit 8 in CTIA or American Beverage. 9 This IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all proceedings in this 10 case are hereby STAYED pending issuance of opinions by the Ninth 11 Circuit in American Beverage Association v. City and County of 12 San Francisco, No. 16-16072, and CTIA-The Wireless Association v. 13 City of Berkeley, No. 16-15141. 14 issued opinions in both those cases, counsel shall take the 15 necessary steps to have this matter placed back on the calendar 16 for further status conference. 17 date of January 22, 2019 on the cross-motions for summary 18 judgment are vacated. When the Ninth Circuit has The briefing schedule and hearing 19 20 Dated: September 5, 2018 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Notably, counsel for plaintiff explained multiple times at oral argument that he was not claiming “the sky would fall” if a stay was granted. 1 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?