Block v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 132

ORDER denying 100 Motion to Stay by Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.(SSM)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9

ANNE BLOCK, an individual,

10

Case No. C15-2018RSM

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL

WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
I. INTRODUCTION

17
18
19

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Stay Pending an Appeal of the
Court’s Prior Order Denying her motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). Dkt. #100.

20
21

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order staying all further proceedings while she pursues an appeal in

22

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Id. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES the

23

motion.

24
II. BACKGROUND

25
26
27

The Court has previously set forth the relevant background to this action and incorporates it by
reference herein. See Dkts. #84 and #122. On April 1, 2016, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for

28
29
30

ORDER– 1

1

TRO, finding that she failed to demonstrate imminent irreparable harm. Dkt. #86. However, to the

2

extent that Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction through the same motion, the Court noted that for

3
4

consideration on April 29, 2016, and it remains pending a decision. Id.

5

On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

6

Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. #96. The Court struck that Order, finding it duplicative and moot given

7
8

that Plaintiff’s first motion for preliminary injunction remains pending. Dkt. #98. To the extent that

9

Plaintiff simply sought through her second motion to add an amended Declaration in support of her

10

pending motion for preliminary injunction, the Court will decide whether to consider the amended

11
12

Declaration at the time it considers the pending motion.

13

Plaintiff now seeks a stay of her current proceedings. At the time Plaintiff filed the instant

14

motion, she had not filed any appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, nor had she filed any

15
16

Notice of Appeal in this Court. Moreover, she had not filed a motion asking this Court to certify any

17

interlocutory appeal. Since filing the instant motion, Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal

18

in this Court, notifying this Court that she will appeal a number of Orders of this Court. Dkt. #123.

19
20

However, she still has not sought any certification for interlocutory appeal.
III. DISCUSSION

21
22

Generally, an appeal of an interlocutory order does not divest the District Court of jurisdiction

23
24

to continue with the case. However, “a district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an

25

incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S. Ct.

26

1636, 137 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1997). This Court “with propriety” may stay an action in the interests of

27
28
29
30

efficiency, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.

ORDER– 2

Leyva v.

1

Certified Grocers of California Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). Consideration of

2

judicial economy is an appropriate basis for imposing a stay, as long as the stay is not indefinite or

3
4
5
6

potentially lengthy. Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000).
In this case, the Court finds no basis for a stay. Indeed, it does not appear that an interlocutory
appeal is available to Plaintiff. Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 provides in relevant part:

7
8

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the courts of
appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:

9

13

(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States, the
United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the
District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or
of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or
dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions,
except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court;

14

28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a)(1). Thus, the Ninth Circuit may hear appeals from interlocutory orders of this

10
11
12

15
16

Court which grant, continue, modify, refuse or dissolve injunctions. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). “Ordinarily,

17

an appeal does not lie from the denial of an application for a temporary restraining order; such appeals

18

are considered premature and are disallowed ‘in the interests of avoiding uneconomical piecemeal

19
20

appellate review.’” Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology Intern., Inc. v. Scott,

21

869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kimball v. Commandant Twelfth Naval District,

22

423 F.2d 88, 89 (9th Cir. 1970)).

23
24

However, a TRO denial order may be appealed if the circumstances render the denial

25

tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction. Church of Scientology Intern. Inc., 869 F.2d at

26

1308; Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Andrus, 625 F.2d 861, 862 (9th Cir.1980). The Ninth

27
28
29
30

Circuit has found that the denial of a TRO is tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction if: (1)

ORDER– 3

1

the denial of the TRO followed a full adversary hearing; and (2) in the absence of review, the appellant

2

would be effectively foreclosed from pursuing further interlocutory relief. Andrus, 625 F.2d at 862.

3
4

There was no such denial in this case. Here, the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for TRO did not follow a

5

full adversary hearing.

6

obtaining further relief because the Court has allowed her motion for preliminary injunction to move

7
8

Moreover, the Order denying the TRO does not foreclose Plaintiff from

forward, and it is currently noted for consideration on April 29th. Likewise, the denial of the TRO did

9

not effectively decide the merits of Plaintiff’s action. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot automatically appeal

10

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a)(1) and there is no basis for a stay of the proceedings in this Court.

11
IV. CONCLUSION

12
13

For these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Stay (Dkt.

14

#100) is DENIED. The Clerk SHALL send a copy of this Order to any pro se Defendants not

15
16
17

using electronic filing and to the Proposed Intervenors.
DATED this 19th day of April, 2016.

18

A

19
20

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

ORDER– 4