Finkelstein et al v. San Mateo County District Attorney's Office et al

Filing 122

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 108 County Defendants' Motion to Stay; vacating deadlines (finding as moot 117 Stipulation); and rescheduling hearing on 111 City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN FINKELSTEIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al.,

11

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-00009-EMC

12

ORDER GRANTING COUNTY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY;
VACATING DEADLINES; AND
RESCHEDULING HEARING ON CITY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Docket No. 108

13
The County Defendants have moved to stay the proceedings against them, largely based on

14
15

the appeal of the Court’s qualified immunity decision as to D.D.A. Jangla.1 In their motion, the

16

County Defendants suggest that the Court should stay proceedings not only as to them, but also as

17

to all defendants, in the interest of judicial economy. Plaintiffs have endorsed a stay as all

18

proceedings pending the appeal by D.D.A. Jangla.
Because both the County Defendants and Plaintiffs were in agreement, the Court asked the

19
20

remaining defendants to weigh in on the issue. The remaining defendants – i.e., the City

21

Defendants and Detective Cichocki – agree that the case should be stayed pending D.D.A.

22

Jangla’s appeal but assert that the Court should first rule on their respective motions for summary

23

judgment, which are currently set for hearing on February 7 and 21, 2019. The defendants note

24
25
26
27
28

See, e.g., Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985) (noting that “district court’s denial of a
claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law,” is a collateral order that may
be immediately appealed); Kennedy v. Ridgefield City, 439 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2006)
(noting that, “[w]hile the district court concluded that issues of fact remain, those disputed facts
are not the basis of Shields’s interlocutory appeal before this court[;] [r]ather, Shields contends
that, even after resolving the issues of fact in Kennedy's favor, Kennedy will not have
demonstrated that Shields violated her clearly established, constitutional right” and this is an
“‘abstract issue of law relating to qualified immunity’”).
1

1

that their motions also raise qualified immunity issues and, if the Court were to rule against them

2

on qualified immunity, as it did with D.D.A. Jangla, they would likely appeal as well, and it would

3

make sense to have all defendants’ appeals consolidated and heard before the Ninth Circuit at the

4

same time.
Taking into account, inter alia, the above circumstances, the Court GRANTS the County

5
6

Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings as to them and VACATES the hearing on the motion.

7

The Court shall proceed with the motions for summary judgment filed by the City Defendants and

8

Detective Cichocki but, after ruling on the motions, shall stay all proceedings. If the Court were

9

to rule in these defendants’ favor on all grounds, then a stay would be appropriate because the only
defendants in the case would be the County Defendants. If the Court were to rule in the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Finkelsteins’ favor, either in whole or in part, it would not make sense to proceed with a trial –

12

even if the City Defendants and Detective Cichocki did not appeal2 – because it would be

13

inefficient to split the proceedings against the City Defendants and Detective Cichocki from the

14

proceedings against the County Defendants.
Based on the above ruling, the Court VACATES the expert discovery deadlines, as well as

15
16

all other deadlines (including trial) pending the appeal, and the parties’ stipulation at Docket No.

17

117, which suggests a continuation of expert discovery deadlines to specific dates, is moot.

18

Finally, the Court hereby RESCHEDULES the hearing on the City Defendants’ motion

19

for summary judgment. More specifically, the motion shall now be heard on February 21, 2019,

20

at 1:30 p.m. (i.e., the same day and time as the hearing for Detective Cichocki’s motion for

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

2

Of course, if the Court made qualified immunity rulings in favor of the Finkelsteins, then, as
defendants assert, they would likely appeal, in which case a stay would make sense so that all
appeals could be considered by the Ninth Circuit together.
2

1

summary judgment). The briefing schedule, however, for both motions for summary judgment

2

remains the same.

3

This order disposes of Docket No. 108.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: January 18, 2019

8
9
10

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3