Jones v. Skolnik et al

Filing 451

ORDER - Defendants' # 446 Motion to Hold Order # 445 Denying Stay in Abeyance pending the Ninth Circuit's decision regarding Defendants' motion to stay is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/9/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9

CHRISTOPHER A. JONES,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
) 3:10-cv-00162-LRH-VPC
)
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

14
15

Before the Court is Defendants Brian Williams, James Cox, and Howard Skolnik’s

16

(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Stay Order Pending Interlocutory Appeal. Doc. #446.1

17

Plaintiff Christopher Jones (“Jones”) filed an Opposition (Doc. #448), to which Defendants

18

replied (Doc. #449).

19

On June 18, 2015, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny

20

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay Further Discovery. Doc. #431. On July 2,

21

2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. #434), and on July 17, 2015,

22

Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court (Doc. #439). The Court denied Defendants’

23

Motion to Stay pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on July 22, 2015. Doc. #445. On August 11,

24

2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Stay of the Court’s Order denying their Motion to Dismiss

25

with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Doc. #446, Ex. A. This Motion was filed pursuant to

26

the collateral order rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

27
28

On August 13, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion to Hold Order Denying Motion to
Stay in Abeyance while the Ninth Circuit considers Defendants’ Motion to Stay pursuant to the

1

Refers to the Court’s docket number.

1

collateral order rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Defendants acknowledge that the Court’s denial of the

2

prior motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) was based on confusion created by their own legal

3

arguments,2 but nonetheless request abeyance of that Order.

4

Under the collateral order rule, the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review an appeal of a

5

district court’s interlocutory order if the order “(1) conclusively determine[s] the disputed

6

question; (2) resolve[s] an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action; and

7

(3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Confederated Salish v.

8

Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398, 1402 (9th Cir. 1994) (quotation marks omitted) (citing Coopers &

9

Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)). Defendants’ motion to stay before the Ninth

10

Circuit argues that stay is appropriate under § 1291 because all three of these elements are met.

11

Doc. #446, Ex. A at 6-7.

12

The Court finds it appropriate to hold its July 22, 2015, Order (Doc. #445) denying

13

Defendants’ Motion Stay in abeyance while the Ninth Circuit considers Defendants’ motion to

14

stay the Court’s June 18, 2015, Order (Doc. #431) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This action

15

prevents any waste of resources and judicial efficiency that would arise if the case proceeded and

16

the Ninth Circuit subsequently granted Defendants’ Motion to Stay. See Lakeland Village

17

Homeowners Ass’n v. Great Am. Ins. Grp., 727 F. Supp. 2d 887, 897 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (granting

18

motion to stay pending interlocutory appeal due partially to the potential for waste of judicial

19

resources). The Court therefore grants Defendants’ Motion to Hold Order [#445] Denying Stay

20

in Abeyance (Doc. #446) pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision regarding Defendants’ motion to

21

stay.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
2

28

Defendants’ first Motion to Stay (Doc. #434) does not refer to § 1291 or § 1292(b) specifically
but the arguments therein are clearly directed at a stay pursuant to § 1292(b) because the motion
addresses “controlling” questions of law and “substantial ground for difference,” both of which are
elements of stay pursuant to § 1292(b), and not § 1291.

2

1
2

III.

Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Hold Order [#445] Denying

3

Stay in Abeyance (Doc. #446) pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision regarding Defendants’

4

motion to stay is GRANTED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED this 9th day of September, 2015.

7

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3