Smith v. Baca

Opinion

Attorney General 2 VICTORIA C. COREY (Bar No. 16364) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 (702) 486-9245 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 Email: vcorey@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants Isidro Baca, Charles Daniels, 8 and Edward Gibson 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 JACOB SMITH, Case No. 3:22-cv-00522-MMD-CSD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER APPROVING MOTION TO VACATE ORDER SETTING 14 ISIDRO BACA, et al., SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE [ECF NO. 45] FOR LACK OF 15 Defendants. JURISDICTION 16 17 Defendants, Isidro Baca, Charles Daniels and Edward Gibson, by and through 18 counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Victoria C. Corey, Deputy Attorney 19 General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby move this Court to 20 Vacate the Order Setting Settlement Conference (ECF No. 45) based on Defendants’ 21 interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 46) of this Court’s order denying summary judgment, based 22 on qualified immunity (ECF No. 44). 23 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 24 I. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 This Court issued an Order denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 26 including the denial of qualified immunity. ECF No. 44. Defendants have filed an 27 interlocutory appeal of this Order denying qualified immunity. ECF No. 46. This Motion to 28 vacate the settlement conference (ECF No. 45) set for February 12, 2025, based on the filing 2 jurisdiction to hold the conference. 3 II. APPLICABLE LAW 4 The United States Supreme Court has found “the reasoning that underlies the 5 immediate appealability of an order denying absolute immunity indicates to us that the 6 denial of qualified immunity should be similarly appealable.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 7 511, 526-27 (1985). This is true because, “in each case, the district court’s decision is 8 effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Id. at 527. The Ninth Circuit 9 has adopted the rule that “where, as here, the interlocutory claim is immediately 10 appealable, its filing divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed to trial.” Chuman 11 v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court is automatically divested of 12 jurisdiction unless there is a written certification by the court that the claim of qualified 13 immunity is frivolous. Id. 14 Under Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736, 744 (2023), Griggs v. Provident 15 Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982), Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982), 16 Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996), and Mitchell, the district court is divested of 17 jurisdiction over all “aspects of the case involved in the appeal” (Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58), 18 and gives Defendants the “right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the 19 burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery” (Behrens, 516 U.S. at 308), and the district 20 court is therefore required to stay its proceedings (Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 744). This 21 expansive rule was recognized by the Ninth Circuit in Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th 22 Cir. 1996), which held that by “filing the notice of appeal, [a party] divested the district 23 court of its jurisdiction over the matter.” Id. at 1246 (emphasis added; superseded by 24 statute on other grounds). 25 III. ARGUMENT TO VACATE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 26 A. The Appeal Automatically Divests this Court of Jurisdiction 27 Defendants have filed an interlocutory appeal based on the denial of qualified 28 immunity. ECF No. 46. This appeal automatically divests this Court of jurisdiction because 2 written certification that the qualified immunity claim is frivolous. Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 3 526-27; Chuman, 960 F.2d at 104. 4 B. This Court must Vacate the Settlement Conference 5 Following the decision on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the only 6 claims remaining for trial are under appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 44; ECF No. 46. 7 As outlined in section II above, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter based on 8 Defendants’ filing of a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed after this Court 9 scheduled the settlement conference. Compare ECF Nos. 45, 46. This intervening change, 10 which occurred after this Court scheduled the settlement conference, requires the 11 settlement conference be vacated. This Court cannot hold a settlement conference over 12 claims that it lacks the jurisdiction to resolve. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 The filing of Defendants’ interlocutory appeal based on qualified immunity has 15 divested this Court of jurisdiction over the claims which remain in this lawsuit, and the 16 settlement conference scheduled for February 12, 2025, must be vacated. 17 DATED this 8th day of January 2025. 18 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 19 20 By: /s/ Victoria C. Corey VICTORIA C. COREY (Bar #16364) 21 Deputy Attorney General 22 Attorneys for Defendants 23 APPROVED. 24 25 Dated: January 13, 2025. 26 27 ______________________________________ Craig S. Denney, U.S. Magistrate Judge 28