Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALFRED LAM, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CITY & COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 10-cv-4641-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order denying 

plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings pending appeal. In the motion for reconsideration, 

plaintiffs address the four factors governing the issuance of a stay, which were set forth in 

the court’s previous order. See Dkt. 127 (citing Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City 

and County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008)). Specifically, those 

four factors are (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely 

to succeed on the merits, (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a 

stay, (3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in 

the proceeding, and (4) where the public interest lies. 

In their motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs do provide newly-cited case law that 

bears on the merits of their appeal. Specifically, whereas plaintiffs had previously 

provided no support for their argument that the statute of limitations for section 1981, 

1983, and 19911

 claims had been legislatively extended from two years to four years, 

 

1

 The court assumes that the reference to “section 1991” claims was in error, as section 

42 U.S.C. § 1991 governs fees for persons appointed to execute process. 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 130 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

Northern District of California 

they now cite a case that lends support to their position, at least as to the section 1981 

claim. Johnson v. Lucent Technologies Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011). While 

this case certainly bolsters their appeal, the court still finds that plaintiffs have fallen short 

of a “strong showing that [they] are likely to succeed on the merits,” because plaintiffs 

failed to provide a proposed amended complaint along with their motion for leave to file a 

fourth amended complaint, as required by Civil Local Rule 10-1. Indeed, by not 

submitting a proposed amended complaint or even summarizing the newly-proposed 

allegations, the court had no way of determining whether amendment would be futile or 

otherwise improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Even more importantly, 

it appears that the Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ appeal, as this court’s 

order denying leave to file a fourth amended complaint was not a final, appealable order. 

Thus, despite the new citation to Johnson v. Lucent, the court still finds that plaintiffs 

have not made a sufficient showing of likelihood of success on the merits. 

Further, even if the court were to find that plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of 

success on the merits, it still finds that the lack of any irreparable injury warrants against 

a stay. As the court previously held, “[t]he only ‘injury’ that would result from denial of a 

stay would be the requirement of plaintiffs’ participation in the discovery process, hardly 

an ‘injury’ (given that they filed this suit) nor ‘irreparable.’” See Dkt. 127 at 2. 

In their reconsideration motion, plaintiffs assert that they “will be irreparably injured 

due to the financial, psychological, and emotion[al] impacts the decision would entail.” 

Dkt. 129 at 5-6. This argument does not address the question of how plaintiffs would be 

harmed absent a stay, and addresses only the impact of an adverse decision on the 

merits of their motion to amend the complaint. As mentioned above, absent a stay, the 

only “injury” that would result is the requirement that plaintiffs participate in the discovery 

process. That does not constitute “irreparable injury.” 

Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 130 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

Dated: July 22, 2015 

3

__

PH

Un

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

__________

dge 

______ 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 130 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 3