Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03415/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03415-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03415-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING 

APPEAL

Docket No. 69

Previously, the Court denied Plaintiffs‟ motion for a preliminary injunction. See Docket 

No. 68 (order). In response, Plaintiffs have now moved for an injunction pending appeal of that 

order. Having considered the parties‟ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby 

conditionally GRANTS Plaintiffs‟ motion.1

The Court has the authority to issue an injunction pending appeal, notwithstanding its 

denial of preliminary injunctive relief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c). That 

rule provides that, “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that 

grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an 

injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party‟s rights.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 62(c).

The City argues that Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under Rule 62(c) because the rule 

specifies that relief may be given “[w]hile an appeal is pending,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c), and, here, 

Plaintiffs have not yet filed a notice of appeal. However, as Plaintiffs argue, this position is not 

 

1

The parties agreed to forego a hearing on the motion.

Case 3:15-cv-03415-EMC Document 77 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

persuasive. The Wright & Miller treatise explains as follows:

Rule 62(c) says that the district court may act in connection with 

injunctions “while an appeal is pending.” It may be argued that this 

means that the court may not make an order under Rule 62(c) before 

the appeal has been taken, and further, that after the taking of the 

appeal the district court no longer has jurisdiction of the case. 

However, those arguments would make the rule a nullity and are 

unsound. When there is reason to believe that an appeal will be 

taken, there is no reason why the district court should not make an 

order preserving the status quo during the expected appeal. The 

order can be conditioned on an appeal being taken by a stated date.

Wright, et al., 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2904 (3d ed.).

The Court now turns to the issue of what factors are considered in determining whether a 

party is entitled to an injunction pending appeal. Plaintiffs argue that the typical preliminary 

injunction factors are considered. See Protect Our Water v. Flowers, 377 F. Supp. 2d 882, 883

(E.D. Cal. 2004) (stating that, “[i]n deciding whether to grant an injunction pending appeal, courts 

apply the standard employed when considering a motion for a preliminary injunction”); see also

Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, 638 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating 

that, “„[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest‟”). Relying on 

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1986), which formally addressed a request for a stay of an 

order pending appeal rather than an injunction, the City argues that the party seeking an injunction 

pending appeal must make a “strong showing” of likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 776. 

At the very least, the City argues, Plaintiffs here “must make an „even stronger showing‟ that they 

will succeed on the merits than they did in their preliminary injunction motion.” Opp‟n at 2. See, 

e.g., See Bayless v. Martine, 430 F.2d 873, 879 (5th Cir. 1970) (stating that, “[s]ince appellants 

failed to make out a prima facie case demonstrating a reasonable probability of success on the 

merits[,] a fortiori they did not make that even stronger showing that is prerequisite to the grant of 

a stay and the issuance of an injunction pending a hearing on the merits of an interlocutory 

appeal”). 

It is questionable, however, whether Hilton should apply to a motion for injunction

Case 3:15-cv-03415-EMC Document 77 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

pending appeal of an order denying a preliminary injunction. Under the City‟s position, a party 

who is denied a preliminary injunction (because the requisites for preliminary injunction relief are 

not met) could never get an injunction from the district court pending appeal. See Protect, 377 F. 

Supp. 2d at 884 (stating that “[s]everal courts have observed that the „success on the merits factor 

cannot be rigidly applied,‟ because if it were, an injunction would seldom, if ever, be granted 

„because the district court would have to conclude that it was probably incorrect in its 

determination on the merits‟”). Such a result would not be consistent with the express language of 

Rule 62(c) which contemplates the possibility that the district court may grant an injunction 

pending appeal from an interlocutory order denying preliminary injunction. “An injunction is 

„frequently issued where the trial court is charting a new and unexplored ground and the court 

determines that a novel interpretation of the law may succumb to appellate review.‟” Id. See 

Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that, “[a]fter noting the various 

interests of the state and the petitioner that the court could take into consideration in adjudicating 

the stay request, Hilton explained that the balance of the relative equities „may depend to a large 

extent upon determination of the State‟s prospects of success in its appeal‟”).

Thus, an injunction pending appeal may be appropriate, even if the Court believed its 

analysis in denying preliminary injunctive relief is correct. This is such a case.

Although the Court believes it correctly decided the issues presented, it recognizes that the 

Ninth Circuit has not squarely decided whether and how Zauderer applies to the context of this 

case: i.e., a compelled disclosure in the context of commercial speech where the government 

interest is not consumer deception, but public health and safety. Furthermore, as the Court 

acknowledged in its order denying preliminary injunctive relief, there is at least a close question as 

to whether Plaintiffs have raised serious questions on the merits, particularly because the 

compelled disclosure has a 20% size requirement which is “not insubstantial.” Docket No. 68 

(Order at 26, 30). There is thus a plausible argument that there are serious questions on the merits

and irreparable injury (see Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959, 973-74 (9th 

Cir. 2002)). In addition, there is a good chance that the injunction pending interlocutory appeal

will be relatively brief because the appeal will likely be resolved on an expedited basis (given 

Case 3:15-cv-03415-EMC Document 77 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3, which allows for expedited briefing on preliminary injunction appeals and 

thus the hardship to the City may be limited).

Accordingly, in light of these particular circumstances the Court grants Plaintiffs‟ motion 

for an injunction pending appeal. 

Finally, to the extent Plaintiffs seek clarification on footnote 1 of the Court‟s order denying 

preliminary injunctive relief, that request is granted. Footnote 1 more accurately should read (with 

new language in bold):

Plaintiffs have not delayed in seeking preliminary injunctive relief. 

Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 24, 2015. See Docket No. 1 

(complaint). On the same day, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary 

injunction regarding the other ordinance. See Docket No. 14 

(motion). Subsequently, the parties agreed that the City would not 

enforce that ordinance pending a final judgment in this case. See

Docket No. 35 (stipulation and order, filed in August 2015). A few 

months thereafter, the Court set a hearing and briefing schedule for 

the preliminary injunction motion regarding this ordinance. See

Docket No. 45 (stipulation and order, filed in October 2015).

This order disposes of Docket No. 69.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03415-EMC Document 77 Filed 06/07/16 Page 4 of 4