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 San 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)

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