United States of America v. State of California et al
Filing
214
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/18/2018 GRANTING 207 Motion to Stay Case; the parties shall file a joint status statement no later than ten days after the appeal to the Ninth Circuit becomes final; the statement shall include specific proposals as to how the parties wish to proceed with the case at bar in light of the Ninth Circuits order. [USCA #18-16496] (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
United States of America,
15
16
17
No.
2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN
Plaintiff,
v.
State of California, et al.,
18
ORDER GRANTING THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL
Defendants.
19
I.
20
21
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October, 2017, the State of California (“Defendant” or
22
“California”) passed Assembly Bill 103 (“A.B. 103”), Assembly
23
Bill 450 (“A.B. 450”), and Senate Bill 54 (“S.B. 54)).
24
at ¶ 27.
25
or “United States”) moved to preliminarily enjoin several of the
26
newly-enacted provisions.
27
and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
28
injunction.
Compl.
Soon after, the United States of America (“Plaintiff”
ECF No. 2.
The Court granted in part
Preliminary Injunction Order (“PIO”), ECF No. 193.
1
1
The Court also granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s
2
motion to dismiss.
3
197.
4
Motion to Dismiss Order (“MDO”), ECF No.
The United States appealed both orders, and now requests
5
that the proceedings before this Court be stayed until the Ninth
6
Circuit hands down its decision.
7
Plaintiff’s motion contends that a stay would promote judicial
8
efficiency, simplify important pretrial issues, prevent
9
inconsistent decisions, and eliminate potential hardship that
Mot. for Stay, ECF No. 207.
10
the it might otherwise face.
Id. at 2-4.
This Court agrees.
11
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
12
13
II.
OPINION
14
A.
Legal Standard
15
“A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings
16
as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”
17
v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).
18
several factors when deciding whether to exercise that
19
discretion to issue a stay: 1) the “possible damage which might
20
result from granting a stay,” 2) the “hardship or inequity which
21
a party might suffer in being required to go forward,” and
22
3) the “orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
23
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of
24
law which could be expected to result from a stay.”
25
v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).
26
Clinton
The Court must consider
CMAX, Inc.
The proponent of a stay bears the burden of showing that
27
these factors, on balance, warrant a stay.
28
708.
Clinton, 520 U.S. at
The moving party “must make out a clear case of hardship
2
1
or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a
2
fair possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to
3
some[one] else.”
4
(1936).
5
B.
6
Analysis
1.
7
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255
Denying a Stay Would Result in Hardship or
Inequity to the United States
8
The Court finds that the United States will face
9
unnecessary hardship or inequity if a stay is denied.
10
California “propose[s] extensive discovery, over the course of
11
over seven months” on the provisions of AB 450 that have been
12
enjoined and remain at issue before this Court.
13
also Joint Status Report at 3, ECF No. 205.
14
explained, this case “presents unique and novel constitutional
15
issues.”
16
uncertainty as to whether this Court’s orders will be affirmed
17
imposes a hardship upon the United States—particularly when the
18
Court of Appeals will soon clarify the legal landscape.
19
the Ninth Circuit’s decision may, as the United States argues,
20
cause the issues now before this Court to “be subject to
21
modification or rendered moot.”
22
Order at 3.
Mot. at 3.
See
As previously
Proceeding with discovery amidst
Indeed,
Mot. at 3.
California maintains that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “will
23
have no bearing on any potential discovery” because the appeal
24
“includes two entirely different statutes.”
25
argument fails to acknowledge that each of the claims—though
26
perhaps factually distinct—involve the same constitutional
27
issues and principles of law.
28
measurably alter the posture of this case.
Opp’n at 6.
This
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling may
3
Allowing this action
1
to move forward while that possibility looms in the background
2
risks unnecessary expense and hardship to both parties as they
3
may end up conducting discovery that ultimately falls outside
4
the scope of this litigation.
5
6
2.
Granting a Stay Would Not Harm California
As the United States argues, California will not be harmed
7
if a stay is granted.
Mot. 3-4.
First, S.B. 54, A.B. 103, and
8
part of A.B. 450 will remain in force while the proceedings are
9
stayed.
California argues that it is “already suffering
10
irreparable harm” as a result of this Court’s injunction on some
11
of A.B. 450’s provisions, and that this ongoing harm warrants
12
denying the stay.
13
interest in “enforce[ing] portions of a duly enacted statute” is
14
undermined both by the state’s failure to appeal the preliminary
15
injunction, and the lengthy timeline it proposes for proceeding
16
to trial.
17
(1st Cir. 2001); Samayoa by Samayoa v. Chicago Bd. Of Educ., 783
18
F.2d 102, 104 (7th Cir. 1986); Cuomo v. Barr, 7 F.3d 17, 19 (2d
19
Cir. 1993); United States v. Washington, No. C70-9213RSM, 2013
20
WL 6328825, *8 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 5, 2013).
21
Report at 3, ECF No. 205.
22
Opp’n at 4.
But California’s claimed
See Anderson v. City of Boston, 244 F.3d 236, 239
See also Joint Status
This Court is not persuaded by California’s claim that the
23
stay will be so “indefinite” that it will threaten the State’s
24
“ability to defend itself and test the United States’
25
allegations.”
26
reason why the United States’ inability to provide a specific
27
end date for its appeal will necessarily result in the type of
28
delay seen in Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators
See Opp’n at 4.
California has not given any
4
1
Ins. Co., 498 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2007).
2
continued for two years while litigants awaited the results of
3
an overseas arbitration.
4
States notes, there is “good reason to believe that the Ninth
5
Circuit appeal process would be brief,” because the Ninth
6
Circuit rules require preliminary-injunction appeals to “receive
7
hearing or submission priority.”
8
Circuit Rule 34-3.
9
Id. at 1067.
There, the stay
Indeed, as the United
Reply at 2.
See also Ninth
Finally, the Court is also not persuaded by California’s
10
claim that putting discovery on hold “prevents [the state] from
11
presenting a defense.”
12
the Court’s comment that “a more complete evidentiary record
13
could impact the Court’s analysis.”
14
The Court explained that “[n]either party provided the Court
15
with much information on how the verification system currently
16
works in practice and how the new law does or does not change
17
those practices.”
18
essential to this analysis as developing the facts.
19
California fails to explain how issuing a brief stay to resolve
20
the legal issues would render any of its needed evidence stale.
21
22
23
3.
Id.
Opp’n at 4.
This argument is rooted in
Id.
See also PIO at 29-30.
But clarifying the law is just as
And
Granting a Stay Promotes the “Orderly Course of
Justice”
Finally, denying a stay not only threatens hardship to the
24
United States, it threatens the “orderly course of justice.”
25
See CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268.
26
the Ninth Circuit “could definitively resolve some of the legal
27
issues in this case.”
28
some of the United States’ claims, found that several of the
As the United States contends,
Mot. at 2.
5
This Court, in dismissing
1
challenged statutory provisions were constitutional as a matter
2
of law.
3
to determine whether that decision was correct.
4
challenges will similarly rise or fall on this determination.
5
The “orderly course of justice” is not served by continuing down
6
the path of litigation without knowing whether the case is on
7
the right track.
8
9
See MDO at 3-6.
The Ninth Circuit is now in a position
The remaining
The Court disagrees with California’s framing of this
factor.
See Opp’n at 7-8.
Awaiting a Supreme Court decision
10
that will neatly dispose of an entire case—as this Court did in
11
Sims v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02702-JAM-AC, 2013
12
WL 753496 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013)—is certainly one way to
13
promote the orderly course of justice.
14
way.
15
different statutory provisions is not determinative.
16
Opp’n at 8.
17
between the proceedings that waiting for one to be resolved
18
would work to simplify issues in the other or preserve judicial
19
resources.
20
Colonial First Lending Grp., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-001482 JAM A,
21
2015 WL 1137344, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015) (finding “no
22
reason for just delay” of plaintiff’s appeal because proceeding
23
to trial would have risked duplicitous proceedings).
24
But it is not the only
Similarly, the fact that Plaintiff’s appeal involves
Contra
The question is whether there is sufficient overlap
CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268.
Cf. McMenemy v.
Here, there is sufficient overlap and a stay will avoid
25
possible inconsistent decisions.
As Plaintiff points out,
26
“without a stay there is a substantial risk of duplication of
27
proceedings and waste of judicial resources [if] the Court makes
28
determinations on a narrow portion of law before knowing whether
6
1
the other provisions of that and other laws will also be before
2
it.”
3
judicial efficiency.
Mot. At 2.
Therefore, a stay is warranted to preserve
4
5
6
III.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS
7
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay.
The parties shall file a joint
8
status statement no later than ten days after the appeal to the
9
Ninth Circuit becomes final. The statement shall include
10
specific proposals as to how the parties wish to proceed with
11
the case at bar in light of the Ninth Circuit’s order.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2018
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?