United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION UNDER FEDERAL
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 62.1 Re: ECF No. 85
TIGAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Warren Havens' motion for
indicative rulings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
62.1. ECF No. 85. On June 20, 2019, the Receiver filed an
opposition to the motion. ECF No. 88. On June 25, 2019,
Havens filed a “supplement” in support of his
motion. ECF No. 90. The Court will deny the motion.
closed case concerns an ownership dispute over wireless
spectrum licenses, brought in Alameda County Superior Court
by Plaintiff Arnold Leong against Defendant Havens and
various entities formerly controlled by Havens. See
ECF No. 1 at 30-72. The entities which hold the licenses at
issue (“Receivership Entities”) are under the
control of a court-appointed receiver, Susan Uecker. No.
18-cv-03603-JST, ECF No. 24-1 at 8-9.
made three unsuccessful attempts to remove this case to
federal court. After his first attempt at removal on June 3,
2015, the case was remanded on June 23, 2015. No.
15-cv-02463-YGR, ECF Nos. 1, 23. Havens attempted to remove
the case again on June 15, 2018, and on September 7, 2018,
the Court again remanded. No. 18-cv-03603-JST, ECF Nos. 1,
50. Havens appealed that order, and the Ninth Circuit
summarily affirmed. No. 18-cv-03603-JST, ECF Nos. 54, 65. On
September 19, 2018, Havens filed his third notice of removal
in the above-captioned case. ECF No. 1. On October 25, 2018,
the Court once again remanded the action. ECF No. 69. On
April 30, 2019, the Court ordered Havens to pay
attorney's fees in the amount of $24, 750 to Uecker's
counsel, and $12, 300 to Leong's counsel. ECF No. 81.
Havens appealed the October 25, 2018 remand order and the
April 30, 2019 fees order. ECF Nos. 72, 82. Those appeals
remain pending before the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 provides that, “[i]f a
timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks
authority to grant because of an appeal that has been
docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering
the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it
would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for
that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial
issue.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1(a). Consideration of such a
request involves four steps:
First, the appealing parties must be motivated by some
concern or issue and specifically ask for an indicative
ruling. Second, the District Court is then obliged to
indicate its view of the request. If the request is denied,
that ends the inquiry. If the District Court is inclined to
grant the request for an indicative ruling, the third step is
to tell the parties and the Circuit Court of its intent.
Finally, it is up to the Circuit Court to decide whether it
will send the case back to the District Court and empower the
lower court to rule.
Defs. of Wildlife v. Salazar, 776 F.Supp.2d 1178,
1182 (D. Mont. 2011).
sets forth five issues and asks the Court to issue indicative
rulings on each, or at least to “indicate its view of
the request[s]” as described in Salazar. ECF
No. 85 at 5.
Court has reviewed Havens' requests and concludes that
they lack merit. Additionally, the Court observes that it has
already considered and rejected many of Havens'
arguments, which he has raised repeatedly in earlier motions.
Havens' motion under Rule 62.1 is denied.
Receiver requests the Court impose sanctions on Havens,
noting that Havens has now been designated a vexatious
litigant in the California state courts and that his motion
“is simply further confirmation of his abuse of process
and his inability to ‘hear [the Court] clearly' in
spite of its exceptionally clear and personally delivered
views.” ECF No. 88 at 3 (quoting Transcript of Oral
Argument, ECF No. 71, at 10). The Court is sympathetic to the
Receiver's position but will deny the motion nonetheless.
The Receiver does not identify the rule that Havens allegedly
violated or the source of the Court's authority to impose
sanctions. See Phillips & Stevenson, California
Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶
17:20 (Rutter Group 2019) (“When seeking sanctions, the
motion should include all potential sources of the
court's sanctioning power in order to give opposing
parties notice and ...