Mir v. Medical Board of California et al

Filing 295

ORDER Denying 292 Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Application for an Order to Stay Proceedings and Amend Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion 294 Motion for Change of Venue. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 10/18/17. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEHAN ZEB MIR,

Case No.: 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER et al.,

ORDER

v.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Defendants.

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS
AND AMEND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(2) DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
[ECF Nos. 292, 294.]

On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff Dr. Jehan Zeb Mir filed a Notice and Ex-Parte
Application for an Order to Stay Proceedings and Amend Order Granting Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment Or In Alternative Summary Adjudication and Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Certify for Discretionary Appeal. Dkt. No.
292. On October 17, 2017 Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Change of Venue. Dkt. No.

27
28

3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

1

294. On September 26, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary

2

Judgment1 and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 288.

3

I. EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND AMEND

4

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff contends that the Court’s Dkt. No. 288 order granting Defendant’s Motion

5
6

for Summary Judgment does not dispose of all issues raised in the Fourth Amended

7

Complaint. In its June 8, 2016 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint

8

the Court held that:

9

The Court previously determined that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim

10

for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under Section 1983 against

11

Defendants Kirchmeyer and Levine to survive a motion to dismiss. (See ECF

12

No. 59 at 11–16.) Thus, what remains is Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim for

13

prospective relief (as defined above) against Defendants Kirchmeyer and

14

Levine in their official capacities only.

15

Dkt. No. 169 at 39. Accordingly, the sole remaining issue for the Court to address

16

in its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was Plaintiff’s

17

Section 1983 due process claim. Because the Court granted summary judgment as

18

to Defendants on this claim, there is no remaining issue in this case. The Clerk

19

correctly issued a judgment on September 26, 2017. Dkt. No. 289.

20

Plaintiff appears to request that the Court certify an interlocutory appeal

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) by asking the Court to “include a statement that

22

the order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial

23
24
While Defendants’ motion was titled “Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary
Adjudication of the Issues,” the Court’s order was not a partial grant of summary judgment (summary
adjudication), but rather a grant of summary judgment in its entirety as to all remaining issues in the
case.
1

25
26
27
28

3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

1

ground for a difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal may materially

2

advance ultimate termination of litigation.” Dkt. No. 292. Because the Court has

3

issued a final judgment in this case, Plaintiff’s request for the court to certify an

4

interlocutory appeal is moot because he may seek an appeal to the Ninth Circuit

5

Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The courts of appeals . . . shall have

6

jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United

7

States”).2 Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to certify an

8

interlocutory appeal.
Further, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request to stay the proceedings

9
10

because a final judgment has issued, the case has been closed, and there is no basis

11

to stay further proceedings in this matter.

12

Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order

13

Staying Proceeding and to Amend Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary

14

Judgment.

15

II. MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

16

Plaintiff seeks to transfer his case under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) from the Southern

17

District of California to the Central District of California on the basis of inconvenience to

18

the parties, expenditure of time, delay in filing documents, and convenience to witnesses.

19

Dkt. No. 294. As stated above, a judgment has been issued in this case and the case is

20

currently closed. Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal and consequently his appeal is

21

currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. No. 290. Accordingly, the Court will

22

DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue. If Dr. Mir’s

23

appeal to the Ninth Circuit is successful, he may re-file the Motion for Change of Venue

24

after the conclusion of his appeal.

25
26

2

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2017. Dkt No. 290.

27
28

3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

1
2

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court will (1) DENY Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order

3

Staying Proceeding and to Amend Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary

4

Judgment and (2) DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of

5

Venue.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2017

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS