Davis v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Filing 116

ORDER STAYING MATTER PENDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANT'S APPEAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/12/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2012)

**E-filed 4/12/12**

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

No. 10-03328 RS

MICHAEL E. DAVIS, aka TONY DAVIS,
VINCE FERGAMMO, and BILLY JOE
DUPREE, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated,

ORDER STAYING MATTER
PENDING RESOLUTION OF
DEFENDANT’S APPEAL

Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
Following defendant’s filing of a notice of appeal of the Court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP
motion, defendant submitted a status report and a request for clarification as to whether all
proceedings in this matter are stayed pending the resolution of its appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently
filed a response indicating they are willing to stipulate to such a stay. Unfortunately, the parties
have failed to meet and confer to prepare a stipulation.
A court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable. See Hilton v.
Hallmark Cards, 599 894, 900-01 (9th Cir. 2010); Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1025-26. The
appeal strips the district court of “its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal,”
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 59 (1982), thereby imposing an
NO. C 10-03328 RS
ORDER

1

1

automatic stay on all trial proceedings related to the anti-SLAPP motion. Moser v. Encore Capital

2

Group, Inc., 04 CV 2085 LAB WMC, 2007 WL 1114117, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2007) (citing

3

Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal. 4th 180, 186 (2005)). In determining whether a certain

4

component of a case is “embraced in or affected by the appeal, [a court] must consider the appeal

5

and its possible outcomes in relation to the proceedings and its possible results.” Moser, 2007 WL

6

1114117, at *4 (quoting Delfino, 35 Cal. 4th at 186). Here, EA jointly filed its motion to dismiss

7

and anti-SLAPP motion. The Court denied both of defendant’s motions explaining that “EA’s Anti-

8

SLAPP motion employs exactly the same analytical framework and arguments” as those rejected in

9

its motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 110 at 15). In response, EA filed a notice of appeal seeking review
of the Court’s entire order. The anti-SLAPP motion and the motion to dismiss are, therefore,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“inextricably intertwined.” Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 902 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Our

12

cases make clear that if the properly appealable order can be resolved without necessarily resolving

13

the pendent order, then the latter is not ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the former.”). Consequently,

14

the Ninth Circuit’s decision on appeal will necessarily affect the remaining proceedings. While it

15

may be in the Court’s discretion to identify particular issues in the case that may be unaffected on

16

appeal, it would be inefficient to do so. Moser, 2007 WL 1114117, at *4 (quoting Filtrol Corp. v.

17

Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[Courts have] inherent power to control the disposition of

18

the causes on the docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort.”)). All further

19

proceedings in this matter are hereby stayed pending the outcome of defendant’s appeal.

20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
Dated: 4/12/12
23
24

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
NO. C 10-03328 RS
ORDER

2