Clover v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to stay the case pending the outcome of a related Ninth Circuit appeal. The court denied the motion as moot, ruling that the pending interlocutory appeal regarding immunity had already divested the district court of jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Stay Denied as Moot“The joint motion to stay pending resolution of the appeal is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the doctrine that a valid notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed. Because the appeal concerned the denial of immunity, which is a central and potentially jurisdictional issue, the district court lacked the authority to issue a stay. Therefore, the motion was properly denied as moot rather than granted or denied on the merits. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and correctly identifies the jurisdictional bar created by the pending interlocutory appeal. It relies on standard Ninth Circuit precedent (Marks) and Supreme Court precedent (Mitchell) to support the conclusion that the district court lacks jurisdiction to stay the case. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON CLOVER, et al. Case No.: 20cv567-LAB (WVG)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO STAY 14 CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO HOUSING LLC, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On March 12, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that, 19 among other things, they were not entitled to immunity. The Court did not resolve 20 the question of whether the immunity they asserted was jurisdictional. They filed a 21 notice of appeal of that order, and the Ninth Circuit has set a briefing schedule. 22 The parties have now filed a joint motion to stay the case, pending the outcome of 23 Childs v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC (9th Circuit Case No. 20-56049), the 24 outcome of which will likely be controlling in this case. 25 A valid notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over all but 26 tangential matters. Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1017 n.8 (9th Cir. 1996). The 27 denial of immunity is immediately appealable. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 28 529–30 (1985). Plaintiffs’ joinder in the motion makes clear that they do not believe 1 ||the Court should certify it as frivolous and continue adjudicating the claims. See 2 || Marks, 102 F.3d at 1017 n.8 (holding that district court is not divested of jurisdiction 3 ||where it certifies that interlocutory appeal is frivolous or forfeited). Because the 4 ||issue of immunity is central to the case, and because immunity could deprive the 5 Court of jurisdiction, the matters appealed pertain to the entire case. The Court 6 ||therefore finds that the interlocutory appeal has divested it of jurisdiction to 7 || proceed, and that no stay is necessary. 8 The joint motion to stay pending resolution of the appeal is DENIED AS 9 || MOOT. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: April 19, 2021 13 / wit 4. WY 14 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 45 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28