Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00464/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00464-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alan N. Ariav, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C.,, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV03-464-TUC-MHM

ORDER

Currently before this Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay this Matter Pending the

Resolution of an Interlocutory Appeal (Dkt. #133). Having reviewed the pleadings, the

Court issues this Order.

On September 29, 2005, the Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, and ordered the parties submit a case management plan and

proposed Rule 16 scheduling orders. On October 27, 2005, a Scheduling Conference was

held pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. During the conference,

the parties articulated their opposing positions regarding whether a stay of this litigation is

appropriate and counsel have also provided the Court supplemental briefing. Dkt. ##133,

135.

On October 4, 2005, Defendant filed a notice of its appeal of the Court's 9/29/05

Order to the Ninth Circuit. Defendant's timely filed notice of appeal divests this Court of

jurisdiction over the issue of its subject matter jurisdiction. Griggs v. Provident Consumer

Case 4:03-cv-00464-MHM Document 139 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Discount Company, 459 U.S. 56 (1982); City of Los Angeles, Harbor Division v. Santa

Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff argues “the improvident taking

of an appeal cannot effectively destroy the authority of the court below to proceed upon

motions properly before it.” Ruby v. Sect, of U.S. Navy, 265 F.2d 385, 388 (9th Cir. 1966).

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s appeal is deficient because "denial of a motion to dismiss, even

when the motion is based upon jurisdictional grounds, is not immediately reviewable." Catlin

v. U.S., 324 U.S. 229, 236 (1945). Further, Plaintiff argues the extraordinary writ of

mandamus is not available because the jurisdictional finding depends upon a finding of fact

made upon evidence which is not in the record. In Re Chicago, R.I. & Pac. Ry., 255 U.S.

273 (1921).

The Court has considered the parties respective positions. While the Court is aware

that two-years after commencing this litigation, Plaintiff seeks to proceed pass the issue of

subject matter jurisdiction, the Court finds a stay is appropriate. The issue of jurisdiction in

a FMLA case is intertwined with the merits, and therefore, any discovery in this matter

would necessarily implicate the jurisdictional issue on appeal. Further, any contention that

the delay in this litigation is due solely to Defendants is not supported by the record. At a

minimum, Plaintiffs failed to timely raise the issue of the applicable time period under the

FMLA. Additionally, Defendant has averred it will seek a speedy resolution of its appeal.

Finally, the Court would be aided by resolution of whether in the Ninth Circuit the question

of eligible employer status implicates both jurisdiction and the merits, and is properly

reserved for the finder of fact. Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 928 (11th Cir.

2003). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay this Matter

Pending the Resolution of an Interlocutory Appeal is GRANTED. (Dkt. #133). This matter

is stayed pending adjudication of Defendant's appeal of the Court's 9/29/05 Order. 

DATED this 8th day of November, 2005.

Case 4:03-cv-00464-MHM Document 139 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2