Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04025/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04025-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

GEORGE UBERTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALERIE BROWN et. al,

Defendants.

Case No. C 19-04025 WHA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STAY

In this Sherman Act action against a County, pro se plaintiff moves to stay this Court’s 

February 21 order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment. 

Plaintiff George Uberti alleged Sherman Act violations by Sonoma County government 

officials and employees Valerie Brown, Susan Gorin, Michael Kerns, David Rabbitt, Timothy 

Smith, Shirlee Zane, Paul Kelley, Michael McGuire, James Gore, Michael Reilly, Efren Carrillo, 

Lynda Hopkins, Rodney Dole, Donna Dunk, David Sundstrom, Erick Roeser, Robert Boitano, 

and Jonathan Kadlec (“defendants”) following the County’s consolidation of the AuditorController and the Treasurer-Tax Collector into a single operational office (Dkt. No. 42). The 

consolidation was blessed by state legislation permitting such governmental action. Following 

briefing and a hearing, a February 21 order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 68). Plaintiff appealed the judgment to our 

Case 3:19-cv-04025-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

court of appeals (Dkt. No. 72). He now moves to stay the judgment under Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure 8(a) (Dkt. No. 73). Assuming that this Court has jurisdiction to rule on this 

motion, we decline to issue a stay. 

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, a party moving to stay judgment must 

show (1) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he or she will be irreparably 

injured absent a stay; (3) that the stay will not injure other parties to appeal; and (4) that the 

public interest in the stay favors the moving party. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 

(1987). In his motion, plaintiff failed to plead any of these elements. Moreover, upon reviewing 

the procedural history and facts pled in prior filings, plaintiff seems unable meet the standards 

warranting a stay of judgment. 

First, judgment has already been entered on the motion to dismiss and motion for 

summary judgment, meaning plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. 

Second, plaintiff cannot show financial injury, as the judgment did not grant any 

affirmative relief to defendants. 

Third, as no affirmative relief was granted, the stay would not affect any of the parties. 

Fourth, no evident public interest remains, because plaintiff did not show actual harm to 

himself or others caused by the consolidation of the offices of the Auditor-Controller and the 

Treasurer-Tax Collector. 

For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a stay of this Court’s February 21 

order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying his motion for summary judgment is 

hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-04025-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2