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)

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)