The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Chi-yi

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 21, 2023
• Docket: 5:13-cv-04383
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 13-cv-04383-BLF LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR 8 UNIVERSITY, ORDER GRANTING STANFORD'S EX 9 Plaintiff, PARTE APPLICATION TO CLARIFY JULY 11, 2023 ORDER 10 v.

11 CHIANG FANG CHI-YI, et al.,

12 Defendants.

13 14 The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) submitted an 15 ex parte application, ECF No. 408, asking the Court to clarify its July 11, 2023 Order. The July 16 11, 2023 Order directs Stanford “to transfer and turnover possession of [certain diaries and papers 17 of Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo (“Deposits”)] in their entirety to Academia Historica 18 within 60 days after the entry of this Order.” ECF No. 404. On the same day, the Court issued the 19 Final Judgment. ECF No. 405. On August 7, 2023, defendant Chungyan (“James”) Chan filed a 20 Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 406. Stanford requests that this Court clarify the effect of Chan’s 21 appeal on Stanford’s obligations under the July 11, 2023 Order. ECF No. 408 at 4. Academia 22 Historica filed a response to Stanford’s ex parte application, requesting that the transfer of the 23 Deposits proceed as ordered. ECF No. 410 at 2. 24 It is well-established that “[u]nless a court issues a stay, a trial court’s judgment . . . 25 normally takes effect despite a pending appeal.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 539 (2015); 26 see also In re Crystal Palace Gambling Hall, Inc., 817 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Absent a 27 stay, ‘all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly.’” (quoting Donovan v. 1 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (enforcing a judgment because inter alia, “Defendants did not seek a stay to 2 || relieve themselves of the requirements of the Court’s orders”); Leuzinger v. Cnty. of Lake, 253 3 F.R.D. 469, 473 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (holding that a judgment was final and enforceable because the 4 || County failed to seek a stay). The Court has provided ample time for any appeal and request for 5 stay. The automatic stay under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a) has expired, and no party has sought a stay 6 || under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). Although Chan has filed a Notice of Appeal, he has not requested a 7 companion stay. As such, the July 11, 2023 Order has taken effect and Stanford must comply by 8 transferring the Deposits to Academia Historica within 60 days of that order notwithstanding the 9 || pending appeal. See Crystal Palace, 817 F.2d at 1365. 10 In light of the above, Stanford’s ex parte application is GRANTED, and the Court directs 11 Stanford to comply with the July 11, 2023 Order. This clarifying order does not constitute further 12 action by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

a 16 Dated: August 21, 2023 — fOIfhcman BETH LABSON FREEMAN Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28