Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04828/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04828-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

Case No. 15-cv-04828-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MOTION TO 

VACATE

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

BENJAMIN VILLANUEVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04828-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 

MOTION TO VACATE

(Re: Docket No. 53, 68)

In January of this year, the court dismissed Plaintiff Benjamin Villanueva’s initial 

complaint, but granted him leave to amend within 21 days.1 Instead of amending his complaint, 

however, Villanueva filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and various other relief as 

well as a motion to vacate the court’s dismissal order.

2

 Because there is no operative complaint, 

the court cannot grant Villanueva any of the relief he seeks. The motions are DENIED.

 

1

See Docket No. 41.

2

See Docket Nos. 53, 68. Separately, Villanueva appealed the order dismissing the case to the 

Ninth Circuit. See Docket No. 42. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because this court had granted leave to amend. See Docket No. 66 (citing WMX Techs., Inc. v. 

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)). “When a Notice of Appeal is defective in 

that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer jurisdiction to the 

appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until the mandate has 

issued on the appeal does not apply.” Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(citing Ruby v. Secretary of Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 388-89 (9th Cir. 1966) (en banc)). Therefore, 

although the Ninth Circuit’s mandate has not yet issued, the court retains jurisdiction to address 

the pending motions.

Case 5:15-cv-04828-PSG Document 72 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-cv-04828-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MOTION TO 

VACATE

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

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04828-PSG Document 72 Filed 04/14/16 Page 2 of 2