Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00361/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00361-0/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

- 1 - 10cv00361

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE CARTMILL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10CV00361 DMS (POR)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

STAY OF TRIAL COURT

PROCEEDINGS PENDING

APPEAL

vs.

SEA WORLD, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before this Court is Defendant Sea World, Inc.’s (herein, “Defendant”) motion for stay

of trial court proceedings pending appeal. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

I.

BACKGROUND

On November 21, 2009, Plaintiff Jane Cartmill and three other individuals staged a

demonstration in front of the entrance to Sea World. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 27-29,

33-34.) The individuals were approached by Sea World security officers and were told to leave or face

arrest. (Id. at ¶¶ 36-38.) When they refused to leave, the Sea World security officers called the San

Diego Police Department. (Id. at ¶ 39.) Two police officers arrived and informed Plaintiff and the

others they needed to leave or they would be arrested, causing the individuals to leave the Sea World

premises. (Id. at ¶¶ 42-47.) Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the instant action on February 16, 2010.

(Doc. 1). On July 26, 2010, Defendant Sea World, Inc. filed the instant motion to stay this Court’s

Case 3:10-cv-00361-CAB-DHB Document 20 Filed 11/05/10 Page 1 of 5
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 support of its motion for a stay, Defendant submitted the Declaration of William L. 1

Cole, attaching as exhibits documents filed in this and other court proceedings. (Doc. 8.) In reply,

Defendant also submitted a request for judicial notice of an additional court filing. (Doc. 16.) As

these documents are matters of public record properly subject to judicial notice pursuant to Federal

Rule of Evidence 201, the Court grants Defendant’s request and takes judicial notice of such

documents. The Court also grants Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of certain court filings filed

in opposition to Defendant’s motion for a stay. (Doc. 15.) 

- 2 - 10cv00361

proceedings in this action pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ resolution of another pending

matter. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff subsequently filed the FAC. (Doc. 10.) 

Defendant filed the instant motion to stay pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’

resolution of the appeal from the Judgment entered in Kuba v. Sea World Inc., 07cv1274 MMA (POR)

(the “Kuba action”). (Cole Decl. Exs. C, D.) In the Kuba action, Plaintiffs Alfredo Kuba and San 1

Diego Animal Advocates filed a Complaint relating to a protest they participated in near the entrance

to Sea World on March 31, 2007. (Plaintiffs’ RJN Ex. C at 2.) Sea World security officers confronted

the group of approximately twenty individuals and informed them they were on private property and

had to leave or face arrest. (Id.) The demonstrators then left the property. (Id.) The San Diego Police

were not called. (Id.) Plaintiffs in the Kuba action filed a Complaint on July 13, 2007, alleging

violations of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and other state law claims. (Id. at 1.)

On June 5, 2009, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant’s motion and denying Plaintiffs’

motion for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs had not shown sufficient state action to

support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control

the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and

for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “Where it is proposed that a pending

proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant

a stay must be weighed. Among these competing interests are the possible damage which may result

from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go

forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of

Case 3:10-cv-00361-CAB-DHB Document 20 Filed 11/05/10 Page 2 of 5
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 - 10cv00361

issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v.

Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). The party moving for a

stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is

even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one else.” Landis,

299 U.S. at 255. 

B. Possible Damage From Stay

Defendant argues Plaintiffs will not be damaged by a stay of these proceedings because this

action and the Kuba action involve precisely the same legal issues, all key discovery has already been

conducted, and Plaintiffs’ free speech rights will not be impacted by a stay. Plaintiffs argue they will

in fact be harmed because the stay would cause delay for an indefinite period of time, hamper their

need for additional discovery, and allow Sea World to continue its free-speech violations. 

The potential length of a stay is a relevant consideration in determining whether to grant it.

Keshishzadeh v. Arthur J. Gallagher Serv. Co., Nos. 09cv168 LAB (RBB), 09cv1273 LAB (RBB),

2010 WL 1904887, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2010). Here, although the Kuba action on appeal is fully

briefed, a date for oral argument has not yet been set and it is likely that such hearing will not occur

for many months, and a decision not issued for many more months. See Richards v. Ernst & Young

LLP, No. 08cv4988 JF (HRL), 2010 WL 682314, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010). Accordingly, the

potential length of a stay in the present action creates the increased possibility of damage to Plaintiffs

and weighs against its imposition.

Plaintiffs also argue, particularly in light of the indefinite length of any stay to be granted in

this case, there is a risk of evidence being lost or witnesses forgetting relevant facts or relocating

outside of the Court’s jurisdiction. They claim they will need additional discovery not conducted in

relation to the Kuba action because the actions relate to two separate incidents which occurred more

than two years apart and discovery from the City of San Diego, which was not a party to the Kuba

action, will be necessary. Consideration of these factors goes against granting a stay of the instant

action pending resolution of the Kuba action on appeal.

C. Hardship or Inequity In Going Forward

Defendant argues it will suffer substantial hardship if the stay is not granted in that it will be

Case 3:10-cv-00361-CAB-DHB Document 20 Filed 11/05/10 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 - 10cv00361

required to spend additional time and resources litigating the instant action, the issues in which may

be substantially or completely limited as a result of the Court of Appeals’ decision in the Kuba action.

Plaintiffs assert this is insufficient hardship to warrant the imposition of a stay and Defendant has

provided no evidence that the increased costs of litigation would in fact be a hardship for it. While

the possibility of duplicative costs in proceeding with a litigation may justify the imposition of a stay

in some cases, the Court does not find that such hardship warrants a stay here. 

D. Course of Justice

Defendant claims granting a stay will promote the orderly course of justice because the claims

and legal issues in the instant action and the Kuba action are virtually identical and involve the same

fundamental question: “does Sea World’s enforcement of its no-trespassing policy constitute state

action such that Sea World may be liable for violations of the right to freedom of speech?” (Mot. for

Stay at 7.) Defendant further argues final judgment in the Kuba action will have a collateral estoppel

and/or res judicata effect on many or possibly all issues in the present action. Plaintiffs argue in

response that the Court of Appeals’ determination in the Kuba action will not be binding on the Court

in the instant action because the actions involve two separate free speech violations, the instant action

states a new claim against the City regarding its ordinance concerning free speech, and the

involvement of the police in the instant action changes the analysis as to state action under the Section

1983 claim. Defendant counters that the fact that police enforce a private property owner’s rules

regarding access to its property does not convert the private action into state action. However, a

determination as to whether there is sufficient state action to support a claim for violation of Section

1983 must be made on a case-by-case basis. See Sutton v. Providence St. Joeseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d

826, 836 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, although the Court of Appeals’ decision in the Kuba action may affect

this Court’s resolution of the instant action, the Court does not find that the issuance of a stay pending

resolution of the appeal is necessary to promote the orderly course of justice. There are sufficient

differences in the factual and legal issues raised in the two actions to warrant their independent

progression.

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-00361-CAB-DHB Document 20 Filed 11/05/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 10cv00361

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for stay of trial court proceedings pending

appeal is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 5, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00361-CAB-DHB Document 20 Filed 11/05/10 Page 5 of 5