Bryan v. Carlsbad, City of et al

Filing 48

ORDER Denying 45 Second Motion for Stay. Bryan's request for judicial notice in support of her motion (Docket no. 47 ) is denied as moot. The deadline set forth in the Court's 4/4/2018 order (Docket no. 43 at 2:16-18) is extended to 5/3/2018. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/10/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jdt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CATHERINE BRYAN, Case No.: 17cv697-LAB (BLM) Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR STAY CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., Defendant. 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff Catherine Bryan filed a notice of appeal (Docket no. 39) as well as 19 an ex parte motion for an indefinite stay of the deadline for her to seek leave to file 20 an amended complaint. (Docket no. 42.) The Court denied that, and ordered 21 Bryan to take action to prosecute her case by April 26, 2018. (See Docket nos. 43 22 and 44.) D 23 Bryan’s notice of appeal sought review of the Court’s denial of her motion for 24 preliminary injunction, motion to add parties, and motion for leave to file a 25 supplemental complaint. It also asked the Ninth Circuit to review the Court’s 26 dismissal of certain claims, which she believes are inextricably bound up with the 27 three motions. Bryan’s appeal of the Court’s non-final dismissal of the complaint 28 was improper, and did not divest the Court of jurisdiction over that matter. (See 1 17cv697-LAB (BLM) 1 Docket no. 43 at 1:24–2:12.) The Court denied Bryan’s request to stay the action 2 pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision. (See Docket no. 44 at 2:1–2.) 3 Bryan has now filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s denial 4 of a stay, without complying with Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) or the Chambers’ standing 5 order in civil cases, & 4(j). All told, the motion and supporting documentation are 6 over 200 pages long. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and ordinarily are 7 not granted unless the Court is presented with newly-discovered evidence or 8 committed clear error, or there has been an intervening change in controlling law. 9 See Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). They may 10 not be used to present new arguments or evidence that could have been raised 11 earlier. See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir.1991). 12 Underlying Bryan’s request is the notion that the Ninth Circuit has power to 13 hear her appeal of the Court’s non-final order of dismissal. In fact, the opposite is 14 true. By attempting to appeal a non-final dismissal of her claims, Bryan is in effect 15 asking the Ninth Circuit to do what both it and the Supreme Court have said 16 appellate courts should not do. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 17 100, 106–07 (2009); SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement 18 & Power Dist., 859 F.3d 720, 723–24 (9th Cir. 2017). 19 Bryan’s notice of motion makes clear she believes granting a stay would 20 prevent the case from being “prematurely dismissed” and would save her the 21 trouble of filing a second appeal. But because the Court’s earlier dismissal does 22 not fall within the purview of the collateral-order doctrine, see id., staying the case 23 would result in the merits of the case remaining unreviewable until this Court issues 24 a final order. This falls under the heading “be careful what you ask for.” The worst 25 thing for Bryan would be to grant her request. The only effects would be pointless 26 delay and expense for her, and a lack of finality for all parties. 27 The Court construes Bryan’s motion stay as a motion for leave to seek 28 reconsideration of the Court’s earlier denial of a stay. So construed, the motion is 2 17cv697-LAB (BLM) 1 DENIED. Bryan’s request for judicial notice in support of her motion (Docket no. 2 47) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3 The Court’s earlier orders (Docket nos. 43 and 44) remain in effect, except 4 that the deadline set forth in the Court’s April 4 order (Docket no. 43 at 2:16–18) is 5 EXTENDED from April 26, 2018 to May 3, 2018. Because Bryan has spent a great 6 deal of time preparing and filing a voluminous motion instead of complying with the 7 Court’s order, she should not assume that any further requests for extensions of 8 time will be granted. 9 The Court recognizes that it can, in certain circumstances, certify an issue 10 for appeal. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1292(b). But the standard for doing so is not met here, 11 and any implied request that the Court do so is DENIED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2018 14 15 16 Hon. Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 17cv697-LAB (BLM)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?