Renna v. Becerra
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court held a status conference regarding a dispute over the stay of enforcement of a preliminary injunction. The court ordered that its prior Amended Order remain in effect, staying enforcement of specific California Penal Code provisions pending the resolution of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court ordered that its Amended Order (ECF No. 81) remains in effect, specifically staying enforcement of the preliminary injunction as to California Penal Code §§ 31910(b)(4), (6) & (7) pending the resolution of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit.“Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS its Amended Order is to remain in effect, enforcement of the preliminary injunction as to California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions) are STAYED pending resolution of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that the filing of a notice of interlocutory appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the specific issues involved in that appeal. By citing *City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper*, the court established that it retains jurisdiction until the Ninth Circuit issues an order permitting the appeal. Since the defendants indicated they were filing the appeal that day, the court logically concluded it would be divested of jurisdiction to modify the stay. Therefore, maintaining the status quo (the existing stay) is the only available and legally sound option for the district court at that moment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional limitation imposed by the pending interlocutory appeal. The court relies on the correct Ninth Circuit precedent (*Santa Monica Baykeeper*) to explain why it cannot entertain the plaintiffs' request to lift the stay at that specific moment. The reasoning is concise but legally accurate regarding the transfer of jurisdiction.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANA RAE RENNA, et al., Case No.: 20-CV-2190-DMS-DEB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS 13 v. CONFERENCE 14 ROBERT BONTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On April 14, 2023, this matter came before the Court in an informal telephonic 19 conference. The parties disagree on how this matter should proceed. The dispute concerns 20 the stay of enforcement of the preliminary injunction ordered by this Court. (See ECF No. 21 81.) Plaintiffs believe this Court should lift its stay, and should be afforded an opportunity 22 to fully brief whether a stay of enforcement of the preliminary injunction is merited. 23 Defendants respond by stating issuance of a stay was already addressed in briefing, and at 24 argument. Defendants further contend that this Court’s Amended Order (ECF No. 81) 25 already made clear enforcement of the preliminary injunction as to the CLI, MDM, 26 microstamping, and three-for-one provisions are stayed pending resolution of an appeal in 27 the Ninth Circuit. 28 1 Defendants further advised the Court it intends on filing its appeal in this matter 2 ||today, April 14, 2023. “[T]he filing of a notice of interlocutory appeal divests the district 3 || court of jurisdiction over the particular issues involved in that appeal.” City of Los Angeles, 4 || Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001). An appeal 5 ||has been “filed” with the court of appeals when the court of appeals issues an order 6 “permitting an appellant to bring an interlocutory appeal.” Jd. (citing Fed. R. App. P. 7 ||5(d)(2)). Thus, this Court retains jurisdiction over its preliminary injunction order until the 8 || Ninth Circuit issues an order permitting either party to bring an interlocutory appeal. 9 Assuming Defendants file its appeal, this Court will be divested of jurisdiction over 10 |/its Amended Order. Despite this, both parties in this matter already argued at the hearing 11 on February 10, 2023 whether stay of enforcement of an order granting a preliminary 12 || injunction would be appropriate. This Court already addressed why a stay is appropriate 13 ||in its Amended Order. (See ECF No. 81.) 14 Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS its Amended Order is to remain in effect, 15 enforcement of the preliminary injunction as to California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), 16 (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions) are 17 || STAYED pending resolution of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: April 14, 2023 20 21 2m Yn. Lh) 22 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 3 United States District Court 24 25 26 27 28