Anderson-Francois v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 124

ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING APPEAL AND VACATING TRIAL DATEgranting 109 Motion to Stay; granting 111 Motion to Vacate (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ORALEE ANDERSON-FRANCOIS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, CITY OF SANTA ROSA, JERRY NEWMAN, BRAD CONNORS, OFFICER HOOD, JOHN FELMAN, and DOES 1­25, inclusive, Defendants. / ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING APPEAL AND VACATING TRIAL DATES No. C 08-00724 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff Oralee Anderson-Francois, a foster parent, sues the County of Sonoma, the City of Santa Rosa and various county and city employees for civil-rights violations pertaining to the removal two foster children from her custody. A May 2009 order denied summaryjudgment motions filed by both sides. It ruled, inter alia, that neither collateral estoppel nor the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applied, that material factual disputes precluded summary judgment on plaintiff's constitutional claims, and that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants have filed an interlocutory appeal of the immunity ruling, and they ask that the case be stayed pending appeal and the pretrial conference and trial dates be vacated. A district court's order denying a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable in appropriate circumstances including where, as here, genuine issues of material fact remain and the immunity ruling hinged on whether a reasonable officer would have been aware that he was violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Gausvik v. Perez, 345 F.3d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

813, 816 (9th Cir. 2003). With limited exceptions, such appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings in the district court: Should the district court find that the defendants' claim of qualified immunity is frivolous or has been waived, the district court may certify, in writing, that defendants have forfeited their right to pretrial appeal, and may proceed with trial. In the absence of such certification, the district court is automatically divested of jurisdiction to proceed with trial pending appeal. Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, defendants immunity claim was not frivolous. Therefore, this case is STAYED pending the appeal. The pretrial conference and trial date scheduled for July 2009 and September 2009, respectively, are hereby VACATED. A case management conference will be held October 22, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. Counsel shall file a joint status report at least seven days prior to the hearing.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2009.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2