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)

Download PDF
**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

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?