State of California v. Health and Human Services et al

Filing 161

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 152 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO LIFT STAY.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

v.

Case No. 17-cv-05783-HSG
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO LIFT STAY
Re: Dkt. No. 152

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et
al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court stayed this case on March 8, 2018, pending

14

resolution of the Defendants’ appeals. See Dkt. No. 147. On November 30, Plaintiffs moved to

15

lift the stay, seeking to amend their complaint to challenge the forthcoming final rules. See Dkt.

16

No. 152 (“Mot.”) at 3. Defendant-Intervenor Little Sisters of the Poor filed an opposition on

17

December 5. See Dkt. No. 155 (“Opp.”). Neither the federal defendants nor Defendant-Intervenor

18

March for Life Education and Defense Fund filed a response. On December 12, the Court held a

19

case management conference with all parties to discuss the administrative motion.

20

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers

21

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of

22

the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58

23

(1982). But the district court retains jurisdiction over matters other than “the particular issues

24

involved in [the] appeal.” City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d

25

882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001).

26

Lifting the stay at this time would be improper, because the Ninth Circuit is currently

27

considering Defendants’ and Intervenors’ appeal of this Court’s preliminary injunction order. See

28

State of California, et al v. Alex Azar, II, et al, No. 18-15255 (9th Cir. filed Feb. 16, 2018). And

1

not only is the Ninth Circuit reviewing Plaintiffs’ standing and other issues decided by this Court’s

2

order, but it also recently ordered supplemental briefing on the status of the rules and whether the

3

case will be mooted by the issuance of final rules. See Order, State of California, et al v. Alex

4

Azar, II, et al, No. 18-15255 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2018), Dkt. No. 124. The parties’ responses in the

5

Ninth Circuit make clear that they continue to disagree as to the mootness issue. See id., Dkt. Nos.

6

133, 137, 138, 139. Considering the broad scope of issues currently before the Ninth Circuit, this

7

Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to lift the stay for the purposes articulated by

8

Plaintiffs and thus DENIES their motion.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/13/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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