Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04947/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04947-3/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF BERKELEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04947-HSG 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO FILE A MOTION TO CONTINUE

THE STAY

On March 21, 2014, the Court granted the motion to stay filed by Defendants City of 

Berkeley, City of Berkeley Medical Cannabis Commission, City of Berkeley Code Enforcement 

Unit, City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department, City of Berkeley Office of the City 

Manager, Gregory Daniels, Nathan Dahl, and Elizabeth Greene. Dkt. No. 39. Since the case was 

reassigned to the undersigned on February 13, 2015, the parties have, by order of the Court, filed 

several brief statements regarding whether the stay should be lifted. See Dkt. Nos. 40-42 (case 

management statements discussing the stay); Dkt. No. 44 (joint status report regarding whether the 

stay should be lifted); Dkt. No. 48 (Defendant’s statement arguing for the stay). At the March 14, 

2017 case management conference, Defendants argued that the stay should remain in effect.1

Judge Hamilton’s March 2014 order reasonably explained why staying the case was 

appropriate under Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), at that time. See Dkt. No. 

39 at 6-7 (legal standard); id. at 7-12 (reasoning). But nearly three years have passed since that 

order was issued. In light of the extensive passage of time, Defendants’ most recent statement, 

 

1

Plaintiff disobeyed the Court’s most recent order for the parties to file a joint statement. See Dkt. 

No. 48 (“Defendant attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel via email and telephone, including 

emailing a copy of the proposed statement. Having not received a reply from Plaintiff’s counsel, 

Defendant files the following case status statement.”) Moreover, on March 14, 2017, Plaintiff’s 

counsel failed to appear at the case management conference, which the Court had set to discuss the 

status of the case, including whether the stay should be lifted. Continued failure to follow the 

Court’s orders will result in sanctions.

Case 4:13-cv-04947-HSG Document 51 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 2
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

Dkt. No. 48, and the discussion that took place at the March 14, 2017 case management 

conference, the Court must reassess whether the stay is still warranted. Therefore, the Court 

DIRECTS Defendants to file a motion to continue the stay by April 14, 2017. The motion should 

include a full discussion of the status of the various state court proceedings, and explain in detail 

the justification under Landis and other controlling authority for continuing to stay this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

3/15/2017

Case 4:13-cv-04947-HSG Document 51 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 2