Estate of Timothy Gene Smith et al v. City of San Diego et al

Filing 121

ORDER: Escamilla's request for a stay is Denied.(ECF No. 117 ). Escamilla's request for an extension of time to respond to the SAC is Granted.(ECF No. 117 ). Escamilla shall respond to the SAC on or before 07/27/2018. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 07/11/2018. (ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9
10
11
12

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE
SMITH, by his successor in
interest WYATT ALLEN
GUNNER SMITH; SANDY
LYNN SIMMONS; and WYATT
ALLEN GUNNER SMITH,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Case No.: 16-cv-2989-WQH-MDD
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO; SCOTT
HOLSLAG; NATALIE ANN
MACEY d/b/a MACEY BAIL
BONDS; LEGAL SERVICE
BUREAU, INC. d/b/a GLOBAL
FUGITIVE RECOVERY; and
DAN ESCAMILLA, as an
individual and on behalf of
LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU,
INC.,

22

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28

HAYES, Judge:
On December 29, 2016, a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) (the “FAC”) was
filed in this case. The ninth cause of action in the FAC was for conspiracy to violate civil
rights against a number of defendants including Dan Escamilla. FAC at 20. On October
19, 2017, Escamilla filed a Motion to Dismiss that made a number of arguments including
1
16-cv-2989-WQH-MDD

1

that the ninth cause of action in the FAC should be dismissed under California’s Anti-

2

SLAPP statute. (ECF No. 72 at 16). On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order

3

stating in part

4
5
6
7
8
9

Escamilla contends that Plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action should be dismissed
under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. (ECF No. 72-1 at 16–18). However,
“[California’s] anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to federal law causes of
action.” Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action is a “federal law cause[] of action” brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss
Plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute.
(ECF No. 95 at 8).

10

On March 9, 2018, Plaintiffs Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, and

11

the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith (acting through his successor in interest Wyatt Allen

12

Gunner Smith) filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 96) (the “SAC”). On March

13

30, 2018, Escamilla filed a Notice of Appeal of the portion of the Court’s Order that

14

declined to dismiss the ninth cause of action in the FAC under California’s Anti-SLAPP

15

statute. (ECF No. 108).

16

On May 31, 2018, Escamilla filed a Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, for an

17

Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 117).

18

Escamilla “request[s] a stay pending appeal or, in the alternative, for an extension of time

19

to answer Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 117-1 at 3). Escamilla

20

contends that a stay is warranted because “the very issue being appealed is the defendant’s

21

right not to be sued; in California the Anti-SLAPP Act is intended to provide immunity

22

from the lawsuit itself.” Id. at 5–6.

23

“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

24

control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,

25

for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. American Water Works & Elec. Co., 299 U.S.

26

248, 254 (1936). The use of this power requires the exercise of sound discretion. Id. It

27

is necessary to weigh the competing interests of those that will be affected by the stay. Id.

28
2
16-cv-2989-WQH-MDD

1

at 254–255; see also CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). These

2

competing interests include:

3
4
5
6

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to
succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties
interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.

7

Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115

8

(9th Cir. 2008). The “party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the

9

circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Ind. State Police Pension Trust v.

10

Chrysler LLC, 556 U.S. 960, 961 (2009).

11

The Court finds that Escamilla has not fulfilled his burden of demonstrating that the

12

circumstances of this case justify staying the case pending his appeal. The Court finds that

13

Escamilla has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal, and

14

consequently has not shown that he will be irreparably injured absent a stay. See ECF No.

15

95 at 8. Escamilla’s request for a stay is DENIED. See Ind. State Police Pension Trust,

16

556 U.S. at 961.

17
18
19

Escamilla’s request for an extension of time to respond to the SAC is GRANTED.
Escamilla shall respond to the SAC on or before July 27, 2018.
Dated: July 11, 2018

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-cv-2989-WQH-MDD