Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FIYYAZ PIRANI, Case No. 19-cv-05857-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO LIFT STAY

10 SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 98 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay is scheduled for a hearing on January 7, 2022. Pursuant to 14 Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral 15 argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the 16 motion. 17 Pirani seeks to lift the stay to allow him to conduct discovery and move for class certification. 18 However, as Pirani acknowledges, this case remains on appeal. Slack has petitioned for rehearing 19 and rehearing en banc, and on November 29, the Ninth Circuit ordered Pirani to respond to Slack’s 20 petition. The pending Ninth Circuit appeal “divests the district court of jurisdiction over the 21 particular issues involved in that appeal.” City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica 22 Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001). The appeal involves the threshold issue of whether 23 Pirani has standing, and thus this Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on Pirani’s motion. 24 Even if this Court has jurisdiction, the Court concludes that a continued stay is in the interest 25 of judicial efficiency and will not prejudice Pirani. According to the parties, there is parallel state 26 court litigation in which Pirani is a putative class member, discovery is ongoing in that case, 27 defendants have recently provided that discovery to Pirani’s counsel, and defendants state that they 1 depositions proceed in the state action. 2 Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Suan Late 6 Dated: December 9, 2021 SUSAN ILLSTON 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28