Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02173/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02173-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

GROCERY OUTLET INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALBERTSON’S, INC., AMERICAN STORES

COMPANY, LLC, and LUCKY STORES,

INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02173 JSW

ORDER ISSUING STAY OF

ENTIRE MATTER

At the case management conference held on August 25, 2006, Plaintiff Grocery Outlet

requested that the Court stay the underlying matter pending resolution the appeal and crossappeal of this Court’s July 7, 2006 order granting a preliminary injunction for Albertsons and

denying a preliminary injunction for Grocery Outlet. Albertsons objected to the request and

asked that the Court set dates and case deadlines.

Generally “an appeal from an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction does

not divest the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with the action on the merits.” See Moltan

Co. v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 55 F.3d 1171, 1174 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing 9 M. Moore, B.

Ward & J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 203.11, at 3-54 (2d ed. 1989); see also

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al., v. Leavitt, 2006 U.S. Dist LEXIS

44316 at *9 n.4 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Moltan, 55 F.3d at 1174) (“[A]n appeal from a

preliminary injunction does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction.”) However, the appeal

of the preliminary injunction order divests the district court of jurisdiction over the matters

appealed. Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp., 847 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations 

Case 3:06-cv-02173-JSW Document 277 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 2
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

omitted). “A district court does retain the power to preserve the status quo while the case is

pending in the appellate court; however it cannot finally adjudicate substantial rights involved

in the appeal.” Id.

Here, the Court finds that its preliminary injunction order, which is currently before the

Ninth Circuit on both parties’ appeals, addresses the core legal and factual issues to be finally

resolved by this case. Therefore, whether or not this Court is technically divested of

jurisdiction, it finds it is prudent to exercise its discretion to maintain the status quo and not

proceed to finally adjudicate the substantial rights involved in the appeal. 

Furthermore, a district court has discretion to manage its docket and “may, with

propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a

stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the

case. This rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral

in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling

of the action before the court. ... In such cases the court may order a stay of the action pursuant

to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a just determination of the

cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64

(9th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). 

Therefore, the Court issues a STAY of this matter pending resolution of Grocery

Outlet’s appeal and Albertsons’ cross-appeal of the preliminary injunction order dated July 7,

2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02173-JSW Document 277 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2