Youngevity International, Corp. v. Smith et al

Filing 560

ORDER Granting 412 Motion for Partial Stay. The motions for summary judgment for counterclaims one through four, six, seven, and nine through twelve are denied as premature, as well as the related Daubert motions. ( 418 , 419 , 421 , 422 , 423 ,[4 24,], 425 , 426 , 427 , 428 , 429 , 430 , 431 , 433 , 435 , 437 , 438 , 441 , 444 , 445 ). The parties are granted leave to resubmit their motions depending on the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. Within thirty days of the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeal, the parties shall file a joint status report informing the Court of the status of this matter. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/16/18. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Youngevity International, et al.,

Case No.: 16-CV-704-BTM-JLB

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

Todd Smith, et al.,

15

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR PARTIAL STAY [ECF No.
412]

Defendant.

16
17

On January 4, 2018, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Youngevity

18

International, Inc., Steve Wallach, Michelle Wallach, Dave Briskie, and Dr. Joel

19

D. Wallach (collectively “Counterclaim Defendants”) filed a motion for a partial

20

stay of the proceedings pending their interlocutory appeal of this Court’s

21

December 13, 2017 decision. (ECF No. 412) The Court grants the motion to

22

stay for the reasons discussed below.

23
24

DISCUSSION
Both parties agree that under California law, an appeal of a denial of an

25

anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays further trial court proceedings on causes

26

of action related to the motion. Varian Med. Sys. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180, 186

27

(2005). However, there is no automatic stay for “ancillary or collateral matters

28

which do not affect the judgment or order on appeal even though the
1
16-CV-704-BTM-JLB

1

proceedings may render the appeal moot.” Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 10-cv-

2

940-IEG, 2011 WL 613571, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (citing Varian Med.

3

Sys., 35 Cal.4th at 191). Thus, the Court grants Counterclaim Defendants’

4

motion and hereby immediately stays counterclaims six, seven, nine, ten, eleven,

5

and twelve. As to the remaining counterclaims and affirmative causes of action,

6

Counterclaim Defendants are not entitled to an automatic stay because they are

7

not subject to an anti-SLAPP appeal.

8

Nevertheless, it remains within the Court’s discretion to grant a stay for the

9

remaining claims. See Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Ca., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863

10

(9th Cir. 1979). While the filing of an interlocutory appeal does not automatically

11

stay the proceedings, a district court has broad discretion to decide whether a

12

stay is appropriate to “promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,

13

and for litigants.” Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972). “A

14

trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest

15

course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of

16

independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863.

17

Counterclaim Defendants urge the Court to stay the remaining

18

counterclaims, or at the very least, counterclaims one through four which are also

19

at issue in the interlocutory appeal because they are allegedly subject to

20

arbitration. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling may have a significant effect on this Court’s

21

disposition of those counterclaims and a stay may save the Court and the parties

22

from unnecessary litigation. Additionally, because an interlocutory appeal is

23

already pending, the Court does not find that a stay of claims one through four

24

would cause Counterclaimants any prejudice. Accordingly, the Court grants

25

Counterclaim Defendants an immediate stay of claims one through four.

26

The Court will rule on the remaining motions for summary judgment for

27

Plaintiffs’ and Counterclaim Defendants’ affirmative claims and counterclaims

28

eight and thirteenth. However, pursuant to this Court’s power to control its own
2
16-CV-704-BTM-JLB

1

docket and with considerations of judicial economy in mind, the Court will then

2

stay the entire case until the Ninth Circuit’s resolution so that all causes of action

3

proceed to trial together. See Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864.

4

CONCLUSION

5

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ and

6

Counterclaim Defendants’ motion for a partial stay of the proceedings. (ECF No.

7

412.) The motions for summary judgment for counterclaims one through four,

8

six, seven, and nine through twelve are DENIED as premature, as well as the

9

related Daubert motions. (ECF Nos. 418–419, 421–431, 433, 435, 437–438,

10

441, 444–445.) The parties are granted leave to resubmit their motions

11

depending on the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. Within thirty days of the Ninth

12

Circuit’s resolution of the appeal, the parties shall file a joint status report

13

informing the Court of the status of this matter.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: July 16, 2018

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-CV-704-BTM-JLB