Levin v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 126

Order Re Limited Remand Following Indicative Ruling by Judge Charles R. Breyer. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

DANIEL LEVIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER RE LIMITED REMAND
FOLLOWING INDICATIVE RULING

v.

13
14

No. 3:14-cv-03352-CRB

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Defendant.

15

/

16

This matter comes before the Court on limited remand from the Ninth Circuit. See

17
18

Attachment A to the Nov. 11 Letter from Christine Van Aken (dkt. 125) (“This matter is

19

remanded to the district court on a limited basis to permit the district court to consider the

20

pending Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 60(b) motion.”). This Court stated in its prior

21

Indicative Ruling Order that:
If the Ninth Circuit authorizes a limited remand for this purpose, the Court will clarify
under Rule 60(b) that its October 21, 2014 order and judgment enjoined enforcement
of “San Francisco Ordinance No. 54-14, S.F. Admin. Code § 37.9A(e)(3)(E), insofar
as it requires the payment of the ‘Rental Payment Differential,”’ see Judgment (dkt.
93), and did not pass on the enforceability of the later enacted San Francisco
Ordinance No. 68-15, see Memorandum of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
(dkt. 92).

22
23
24
25
26

See Order Re CCSF’s Motion for an Indicative Ruling (dkt. 124).

27

//

28

//
//

1
2

The Court now enters the foregoing clarification under Rule 60(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: January 6, 2016
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2