Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2148

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 2139 Defendants' request to shorten time on motion to stay March 24, 2009 Order. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARCIANO PLATA, et al., Plaintiffs, NO. C01-1351 TEH ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOTION TO STAY MARCH 24, 2009 ORDER ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 On March 24, 2009, this Court entered an order denying Defendants' motion to 13 replace the Receiver with a special master and to terminate the Receiver's construction plans. 14 Defendants appealed that order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 15 April 23, 2009. On the same date, Defendants filed a motion to stay this Court's March 24, 16 2009 order pending appeal and, pursuant to this Court's local rules, noticed the motion to 17 stay for June 1, 2009. Defendants also simultaneously filed an ex parte request to shorten 18 time on the motion to stay, such that the motion could be heard on May 18, 2009, or, 19 alternatively, for a temporary stay until the June 1 hearing date. Plaintiffs and the Receiver 20 both filed oppositions to Defendants' request to shorten time. 21 Upon careful review of the parties' and the Receiver's written arguments, this Court 22 does not find good cause to grant Defendants' request. Defendants ask to shorten time 23 because they "stand to suffer substantial harm each day a stay is not implemented as the 24 Receiver's plans for construction are allowed to proceed." Req. to Shorten Time at 2. This 25 argument is undermined, however, by Defendants' own delay in appealing the Court's 26 March 24 order and seeking a stay. If Defendants were suffering substantial harm each day 27 that the Court's March 24 order remained in effect, then it would be expected that they would 28 have appealed and sought a stay as soon as possible, rather than waiting thirty days to do so. 1 Moreover, Defendants present no reason why they would suffer any harm in the two-week 2 period between the scheduled June 1 hearing date and the May 18 hearing date that 3 Defendants now seek. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' request to shorten time is 5 DENIED. Defendants' motion to stay the Court's March 24, 2009 order shall be heard on 6 June 1, 2009, at 10:00 AM, with opposition papers due on May 11, 2009, and reply papers 7 due on May 18, 2009. The Court will, at that time, consider the arguments raised in 8 Defendants' motion, including Defendants' argument that their appeal divested this Court of 9 jurisdiction over the Receiver's construction plan. 10 Because Defendants fail to present any argument or authority for granting a temporary United States District Court 11 stay of this Court's March 24 order pending hearing on a motion to stay that same order, For the Northern District of California 12 Defendants' request for a temporary stay is also DENIED. However, it appears that 13 Defendants' primary concern is that this Court not renew its October 27, 2008 order to pay 14 $250 million to fund the Receiver's construction planning, now that the Ninth Circuit has 15 dismissed Defendants' appeal of that order, prior to the June 1 hearing before this Court on 16 Defendants' motion to stay. The Court assures Defendants it has no intent to do so. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: 05/01/09 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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?