UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 30, 2010
RICK EATON, PLAINTIFF,
MARK J. SIEMENS, AN INDIVIDUAL AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE, CARLOS A. URRUTIA, AN INDIVIDUAL AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER, CITY OF ROCKLIN, A PUBLIC MUNICIPALITY AND PUBLIC ENTITY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendants'*fn1 motion to stay the action pending their appeal of the court's December 14, 2009 order, granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment.*fn2 In that order, the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff Rick Eaton's ("plaintiff") state law claims as well as his Section 1983 claims brought under the First Amendment and substantive due process clause, but denied defendants' motion as to plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim and Monell claim against the City; the court also found that the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff's equal protection claim.
Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal on December 30, 2009 and filed the instant motion on January 4, 2010.*fn3 Plaintiff responded to the motion, asking the court to defer ruling on the motion pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff stated that should the Ninth Circuit deny his motion to dismiss, he did not oppose entry of a stay of this action pending the resolution of the merits of defendants' appeal.*fn4
In light of plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal, this court continued defendants' motion to stay to await the Ninth Circuit's decision. (Docket #s 216-218.) On May 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss. (Eaton v. Siemens, No. 09-17907, Ninth Circuit Order, filed May 21, 2010.)
Accordingly, as plaintiff does not oppose defendants' motion to stay, the court HEREBY stays this action in its entirety pending resolution of defendants' appeal by the Ninth Circuit. Said stay is warranted in the interests of judicial economy as further pursuit of the case against the City would effectively require the individual defendants to defend the case as well, in contravention of their alleged qualified immunity rights. A stay ensures that the court is not required to try essentially the same case twice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.