Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00697/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00697-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

17cv697-LAB (BLM)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHERINE BRYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv697-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING SECOND 

MOTION FOR STAY

Plaintiff Catherine Bryan filed a notice of appeal (Docket no. 39) as well as 

an ex parte motion for an indefinite stay of the deadline for her to seek leave to file 

an amended complaint. (Docket no. 42.) The Court denied that, and ordered 

Bryan to take action to prosecute her case by April 26, 2018. (See Docket nos. 43 

and 44.) D

Bryan’s notice of appeal sought review of the Court’s denial of her motion for 

preliminary injunction, motion to add parties, and motion for leave to file a 

supplemental complaint. It also asked the Ninth Circuit to review the Court’s 

dismissal of certain claims, which she believes are inextricably bound up with the 

three motions. Bryan’s appeal of the Court’s non-final dismissal of the complaint 

was improper, and did not divest the Court of jurisdiction over that matter. (See

Case 3:17-cv-00697-LAB-BLM Document 48 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv697-LAB (BLM)

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

Docket no. 43 at 1:24–2:12.) The Court denied Bryan’s request to stay the action 

pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision. (See Docket no. 44 at 2:1–2.)

Bryan has now filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s denial 

of a stay, without complying with Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) or the Chambers’ standing 

order in civil cases, & 4(j). All told, the motion and supporting documentation are

over 200 pages long. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and ordinarily are 

not granted unless the Court is presented with newly-discovered evidence or 

committed clear error, or there has been an intervening change in controlling law. 

See Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). They may 

not be used to present new arguments or evidence that could have been raised 

earlier. See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir.1991).

Underlying Bryan’s request is the notion that the Ninth Circuit has power to 

hear her appeal of the Court’s non-final order of dismissal. In fact, the opposite is 

true. By attempting to appeal a non-final dismissal of her claims, Bryan is in effect 

asking the Ninth Circuit to do what both it and the Supreme Court have said 

appellate courts should not do. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 

100, 106–07 (2009); SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement 

& Power Dist., 859 F.3d 720, 723–24 (9th Cir. 2017). 

Bryan’s notice of motion makes clear she believes granting a stay would 

prevent the case from being “prematurely dismissed” and would save her the 

trouble of filing a second appeal. But because the Court’s earlier dismissal does 

not fall within the purview of the collateral-order doctrine, see id., staying the case 

would result in the merits of the case remaining unreviewable until this Court issues 

a final order. This falls under the heading “be careful what you ask for.” The worst 

thing for Bryan would be to grant her request. The only effects would be pointless

delay and expense for her, and a lack of finality for all parties.

The Court construes Bryan’s motion stay as a motion for leave to seek 

reconsideration of the Court’s earlier denial of a stay. So construed, the motion is 

Case 3:17-cv-00697-LAB-BLM Document 48 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv697-LAB (BLM)

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

DENIED. Bryan’s request for judicial notice in support of her motion (Docket no. 

47) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

The Court’s earlier orders (Docket nos. 43 and 44) remain in effect, except 

that the deadline set forth in the Court’s April 4 order (Docket no. 43 at 2:16–18) is 

EXTENDED from April 26, 2018 to May 3, 2018. Because Bryan has spent a great 

deal of time preparing and filing a voluminous motion instead of complying with the 

Court’s order, she should not assume that any further requests for extensions of 

time will be granted.

The Court recognizes that it can, in certain circumstances, certify an issue 

for appeal. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1292(b). But the standard for doing so is not met here, 

and any implied request that the Court do so is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00697-LAB-BLM Document 48 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3