Infante v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIA INFANTE, Case No. 21-cv-06892-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING CASE v. 9

10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 11 Defendant.

12 13 This is a putative class action lawsuit challenging the City of San Francisco’s practice of 14 “chalking,” or physically marking car tires to enforce parking ordinances. Plaintiff’s Complaint, 15 filed in September 2021, alleges that the practice of chalking amounts to an “unreasonable search” 16 in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant City 17 and County of San Francisco filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, in which they argue that 18 chalking does not constitute a “search” and, in any event, is “reasonable” under the Fourth 19 Amendment. See Dkt. No. 19. As both parties have acknowledged, the central legal issues raised 20 by Defendant’s motion are presently before the Ninth Circuit in Verdun v. City of San Diego, 549 21 F. Supp. 3d 1192, 1193 (S.D. Cal. 2021), appeal docketed, No. 21-55046 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2021). 22 For the reasons explained below, the Court will stay this case pending guidance from the Ninth 23 Circuit in Verdun. 24 The power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control 25 the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, 26 and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In order to issue a stay, courts 27 consider: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or 1 || justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 2 || which could be expected to result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 3 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 4 Here, the Court finds the third factor dispositive. In short, a stay pending guidance from 5 the Ninth Circuit on the central issue in this case will likely prevent the parties and the Court from 6 wasting resources. See Aland v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, No. 22-CV-01321-JSW, 2022 WL 7 1539522, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2022) (“[T]he Court would expend unnecessary resources 8 || litigating Plaintiff’s claims now when a binding decision from the Ninth Circuit could later require 9 || the Court to revisit its rulings.”). And neither party has identified any potential damage, hardship, 10 || or inequity that would result from staying the case. Accordingly, the case is STAYED, and the 11 parties are ORDERED to immediately notify the Court (in a joint submission) when the Ninth 12 || Circuit issues an opinion or memorandum disposition in Verdun. If no disposition has issued by 13 September 9, 2022, the parties are directed to submit a joint report of no more than two pages on 14 || that date regarding the status of the appeals.

a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Datea: 6/7/2022

Ataspurerd 3, bb _} HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28