Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-mc-80009/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-mc-80009-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Applicant

 v.

ANNA’S LINENS COMPANY,

Respondent /

No. C 06-80009 MISC MMC

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION FOR ORDER STAYING

ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENA

PENDING APPEAL; DENYING EX

PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER

SHORTENING TIME

Before the Court is respondent Anna’s Linens Inc.’s (“Anna’s Linens”) motion, filed

May 12, 2006, for an order staying, pending appeal, enforcement of Magistrate Judge

Wayne D. Brazil’s order of April 6, 2006. Also before the Court is Anna’s Linens’ ex parte

motion, filed May 12, 2006, for an order shortening time to hear the motion for an order

staying enforcement pending appeal.

On April 6, 2006, Magistrate Judge Brazil issued an order granting the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission’s application for enforcement of an administrative

subpoena and denying Anna’s Linens’ request for a protective order. On May 15, 2006,

Magistrate Judge Brazil issued an order amending the order of April 6, 2006, to clarify said

order was in the form of a report and recommendation, and setting a deadline by which any

party may file an objection. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). In the interim, on May 5, 2006,

Anna’s Linens filed a notice of appeal from the order of April 6, 2006.

Case 3:06-mc-80009-MMC Document 35 Filed 05/15/06 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

Because resolution of the application for enforcement of the subject subpoena is

dispositive of the above-titled miscellaneous matter, the order of April 6, 2006 is not a final

order. See Estate of Conners v. O’Connor, 6 F. 3d 656, 658-59 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding

where magistrate judge’s order addresses dispositive matter, such order is, irrespective of

how characterized, a recommendation to district court); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (providing,

after period to file objections to recommendations has passed, district court “may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the [ ] recommendations made by the magistrate

judge”). Consequently, the notice of appeal filed May 5, 2006 is a “nullity” that does not

divest the Court of jurisdiction to rule on the instant recommendation at the proper time. 

See Estate of Conners, 6 F. 3d at 659 (holding notice of appeal from order on dispositive

motion issued by magistrate judge was “nullity” and did not divest district court of

jurisdiction to issue order construing magistrate judge’s order as recommendation and

adopting recommendation as modified).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for a stay pending appeal and motion for an order

shortening time to hear said motion are hereby DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-mc-80009-MMC Document 35 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 2