Pilant v. Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 DARRELL PILANT, Case No.: 20-CV-2043-CAB-AHG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING SPECIALLY 9 v. APPEARING RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS’ MOTION TO 10 CAESARS ENTERPRISE SERVICES, STAY PENDING APPEAL LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 [Doc. No. 24] 13 14 Upon consideration of the motion by specially appearing The Rincon Band of 15 Luiseño Indians (the “Rincon Band”) to stay this case pending their appeal of the Court’s 16 order denying the Rincon Band’s motion to intervene, the Court does not find that movant 17 has demonstrated that a stay is warranted. 18 The factors to be considered when deciding whether to stay an order pending an 19 appeal include: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely 20 to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; 21 (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the 22 proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999, 23 1006–07 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)). “‘The first 24 two factors ... are the most critical’; the last two are reached only ‘[o]nce an applicant 25 satisfies the first two factors.’” Id. at 1007 (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434-35). The party 26 requesting the stay bears the burden, but a “stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable 27 injury might otherwise result.” Id. at 1006 (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 28 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). l As to likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal, the Rincon Band 2 acknowledges that its arguments are similar to or the same as those made in Defendant’s 3 motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 3] and the Rincon Band’s motion to intervene [Doc. No. 12]. 4 Court has already rejected these arguments, and the instant motion to stay does not 5 || persuade the Court to reconsider those holdings. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 6 || Rincon Band does not have a likelihood of success on its appeal. 7 Nor would the Rincon Band suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. The 8 Court has repeatedly found that the Rincon Band does not have a significantly protectable 9 || interest in this litigation in which Plaintiff seeks solely a money judgment from Defendant. 10 || Because it does not have such an interest, the Rincon Band will not suffer any harm if this 11 || litigation proceeds while its appeal is pending. 12 Because the Rincon Band has not satisfied either of the first two factors for a stay, 13 Court need not reach the final two factors. The Rincon Band’s motion to stay this case 14 || pending its appeal of the Court’s denial of its motion to intervene is therefore DENIED. 15 The Court further denies the Rincon Band’s request for a temporary stay pending its 16 || filing of a request to stay before the Ninth Circuit. Although this case is already more than 17 ||six months old, due to Defendant’s and the Rincon Band’s largely unsuccessful motion 18 || practice, discovery has yet to start, and the early neutral evaluation conference remains 19 weeks away. The Rincon Band fails to identify anything that may happen in the 20 immediate future that would cause any irreparable harm warranting a stay until the Ninth 21 || Circuit is able to consider a stay motion. The parties to this case shall proceed while the 22 || Rincon Band’s appeal is pending. 23 It is SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: March 30, 2021 € Z 25 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 26 United States District Judge 27 28