Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06997/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06997-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1144(a) E.R.I.S.A supersedes state law employee benefits

---

United States District Court

For the 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

and DOES 1-15,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06997 JSW

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION FOR STAY

PENDING APPEAL

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the ex parte motion to stay

pending appeal filed by Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“the City”). The City

also filed an emergency motion to stay pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals which will be heard on shortened time on Monday, December 31, 2007. 

Due to the urgency of the matter, this Court required that Plaintiff Golden Gate

Restaurant Association (“Plaintiff”) file an opposition to the motion to stay now pending before

this Court by no later than 10:00 a.m. on Friday, December 28, 2007. 

Having considered the parties’ pleadings, relevant legal authority, the record in this case

and good cause appearing, the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral

argument. See N.D. Civ. L. Rule 7-1(b). The City’s application for stay pending appeal is

DENIED.

Case 3:06-cv-06997-JSW Document 91 Filed 12/28/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the 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

2

ANALYSIS

On December 26, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

denied the City’s and the Intervenors’ motions for summary judgment on the limited legal issue

whether the expenditure requirements of the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance (the

“Ordinance”) are preempted by Employee Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C.

§ 1001 et seq. On December 27, 2007, the City moved ex parte to stay the ruling of this Court

pending appeal. Also, on December 27, 2007, both the City and the Intervenors filed notices of

appeal of this Court’s summary judgment order before the Ninth Circuit. The Court only

received notice of the filing of the notices of appeal on December 28, 2007.

“Once a notice of appeal is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the

matter being appealed.” Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine Inc.,

242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459

U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical

Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1982)). “This rule is judge-made; its purpose is to

promote judicial economy and avoid the confusion that would ensue from having the same

issues before two courts simultaneously.” Southwest Marine, 242 F.3d at 1166 (citing

Masalosalo v. Stonewall Insurance Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983); 20 James Wm.

Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 303.32[1] (3d ed. 2000)). The principle of exclusive

appellate jurisdiction is not absolute, however, as the “district court retains jurisdiction during

the pendency of an appeal to act to preserve the status quo.” Southwest Marine, 242 F.3d at

1166 (citations omitted). The trial court retains the inherent power “during the pendency of an

appeal to act to preserve the status quo and to ensure the effectiveness of the eventual

judgment.” Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 859 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting 11

Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2904, at 315 (1973)). 

Here, the City moves for a stay of this Court’s order declaring the Ordinance preempted

and therefore invalid. The effect of granting a stay of that order would be to allow the

Ordinance to go into effect as of January 2, 2008. Thus, the City requests that this Court

modify the status quo pending appeal. This the Court cannot do. Sometimes a court may only

Case 3:06-cv-06997-JSW Document 91 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the 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

3

preserve the status quo by denying a request for a stay. See Dayton Board of Education v.

Brinkman, 439 U.S. 1358 (1978) (holding that because granting a stay would reverse the status

quo, “here it can be preserved only by denying” the stay); see also United States v. Michigan,

5050 F. Supp. 467, 471 (W.D. Mich. 1980) (“By seeking a partial stay before this court, the

State is asking that the status quo be turned one hundred eighty degrees .... The purpose of a

stay is to preserve, not change, the status quo pending the outcome of an appeal.”)

Even if the Court did find that a stay was warranted because the City made a strong

showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits; or that it would be irreparably injured

absent a stay; or that issuance of a stay would substantially injure the other parties interested in

the proceeding; or that the stay should be granted in the public interest, the Court could not now

act to modify the status quo. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Although the

Court does find that “district courts properly stay their own orders when they have ruled on an

admittedly difficult legal question and when the equities of the case suggest that the status quo

should be maintained,” here the stay would reverse the status quo and enable what the Court

considers to be a preempted local ordinance to take effect. See Protect Our Water v. Flowers,

377 F. Supp. 2d 882, 884 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (internal citations omitted). 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the City’s ex parte application for stay pending appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06997-JSW Document 91 Filed 12/28/07 Page 3 of 3