Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641-23/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 TO STAY 

 Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings pending their appeal of 

the court’s May 11, 2015 order, denying their motion for leave to file a fourth amended 

complaint. Plaintiffs did not notice the motion for hearing, nor does the court find it 

necessary to conduct a hearing, and hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ motion. 

 The factors that the court considers in whether to issue a stay are as follows: (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. Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County 

of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 

U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). 

 Although plaintiffs’ motion falls short in establishing any of the four factors, the 

court is particularly persuaded by the fact that the order from which plaintiffs appeal is not 

a final, appealable order; and thus, the Ninth Circuit appears to lack jurisdiction over the 

appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 127 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 2
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 

Cir

cer

inju

the

(gi

Da

r. 2007). If 

rtainly cann

Moreov

ured absen

e requireme

ven that the

Accord

IT IS S

ated: July 1

indeed the

not show th

ver, at facto

nt a stay. T

ent of plaint

ey filed this

dingly, plain

SO ORDER

16, 2015 

e Ninth Circ

at they are

or (2), plain

he only “inj

tiffs’ particip

s suit) nor “i

ntiffs’ motion

RED. 

2

uit lacks jur

 likely to su

ntiffs cannot

ury” that wo

pation in the

rreparable.

n to stay pe

__

PH

Un

risdiction ov

ucceed on t

t show that

ould result 

e discovery

.” 

ending appe

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

ver plaintiff

the merits. 

t they would

from denia

y process, h

eal is DEN

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

fs’ appeal, p

d be irrepar

al of a stay w

hardly an “i

IED. 

__________

udge 

plaintiffs 

rably 

would be 

njury” 

_______ 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 127 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 2