Williams v. Ortega
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court considered a request to stay the case pending an interlocutory appeal of an order dismissing certain claims. The court denied the stay, holding that the notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction because the order was not appealable, and extended the deadline for the plaintiff to amend one claim.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Request to stay case pending interlocutory appeal denied“The motion to stay is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a notice of appeal from a nonappealable interlocutory order does not divest the district court of jurisdiction. Since the underlying order (dismissing claims with/without prejudice) is generally not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (final judgment rule), the district court retains jurisdiction to manage the case, including enforcing the deadline to amend. Therefore, a stay is inappropriate. |
Deadline to amend claim extended by 21 days“The Court’s order requiring Williams to amend the claim that was dismissed without prejudice remains in effect, except that the Court extends the time by an additional 21 calendar days.” | agree with court The court has inherent authority to manage its docket and set deadlines for amendments. Extending the deadline is a procedural matter within the court's discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that the underlying dismissal order is interlocutory and nonappealable, citing binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Ruby and Estate of Conners) to support the conclusion that the district court retains jurisdiction. Because the district court retains jurisdiction, it is not required to stay proceedings. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for this procedural motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD CDCR #AG-2394, 12 ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO Plaintiff, 13 STAY CASE PENDING vs. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 14 O. ORTEGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The Court on November 4, 2019 dismissed certain claims against defendants 23 Melgoza and Kimani with prejudice, and one claim against Kimani without prejudice and 24 with leave to amend. The Court gave Williams 21 days to amend the claim against Kimani 25 that was dismissed without prejudice. Claims against other Defendants remain pending. 26 Williams then filed a notice of appeal, along with a request to stay the case until the 27 appeal is adjudicated. (Docket no. 34.) Ordinarily, a notice of appeal divests the Court of 28 jurisdiction over the matters appealed. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 1 || U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). But a notice of appeal from a nonappealable interlocutory 2 || order does not divest the Court of jurisdiction. Estate of Conners v. Meredith v. O’Connor, 3 |16 F.3d 656, 658 (9% Cir. 1983); Ruby v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9® Cir. 4 || 1966) (en banc). 5 The Court’s order requiring Williams to amend the claim that was dismissed without 6 || prejudice remains in effect, except that the Court extends the time by an additional 21 7 ||calendar days. If he does not amend within the time permitted, the Court will treat that 8 ||claim as abandoned. The motion to stay is DENIED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] 12 |}Dated: November 20, 2019 / Mb / 4. ‘4, MWY 13 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 14 Chief United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oo