The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 San Francisco Division
11 JOHN WILLIAMS, ROBERT VOGEL, SHEANNA Case No. 3:22-cv-01274-LB
ROGERS, MICHAEL LOEB, JAQUELINE
12 WATSON-BAKER, and HOUSING PROVIDERS ORDER DENYING MOTION
OF AMERICA, a 501(c)(4) Non-profit Corporation, FOR STAY
13
Plaintiffs and Petitioners, Re: ECF No. 115
14
v.
15
ALAMEDA COUNTY, ALAMEDA COUNTY
16 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY OF OAKLAND,
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL, and DOES 1–10,
17
Defendants and Respondents,
18
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
19
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT ACTION,
20
Intervenor-Defendant.
21 CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-02705-LB
STEPHEN LIN, RAKESH and TRIPTI JAIN, & H.
22 ALEX and DANNIE ALVAREZ, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR STAY
23 Plaintiffs and Petitioners,
Re: ECF No. 57
24 v.
25 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,
26 and DOES 10–25,
27 Defendants and Respondents.
1 INTRODUCTION
2 The plaintiffs in these related cases — property owners and organizations representing
3 property owners in Alameda County and the City of Oakland — contend that the County and City
4 violated their rights under the U.S. and California Constitutions by prohibiting the eviction of non-
5 paying tenants during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Williams v. Alameda Cnty., No.
6 22-cv-01274-LB, the plaintiffs claim that ordinances enacted by the County and City are takings
7 under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, inverse condemnations under the California
8 Constitution, and violations of their due-process and equal-protection rights under the Fourteenth
9 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.1 In Cal. Apartment Ass’n v. Alameda Cnty., No.
10 22-cv-02705-LB, the plaintiffs challenge the County ordinance through similar taking and due-
11 process claims under the U.S. Constitution and a similar inverse-condemnation claim under the
12 California Constitution. They also claim a substantial impairment of their lease agreements, in
13 violation of the Contracts Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, and preemption of the
14 ordinance under Article XI, § 7 of the California Constitution to the extent that the ordinance
15 prohibits Ellis Act evictions under Cal. Gov’t Code § 7600 (which allows landlords to withdraw
16 rentals from the market under certain circumstances).2
17 The court agreed to address the plaintiffs’ facial claims before the as-applied claims, set an
18 expedited summary-judgment schedule on the facial claims, denied summary judgment, and
19 denied the plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory appeal of the summary-judgment order.3 The cases
20 have otherwise been stayed.4 The defendants now move to extend the stay pending the Ninth
21
22
23
1 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 13–17 (¶¶ 37–53). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF)
24 in the lower-numbered action unless the citation references the higher-numbered action; pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. Orders entered in the lower-
25 numbered action were also entered in the higher-numbered action, unless otherwise indicated.
2 Compl. – ECF No. 1 (No. 22-cv-02705-LB) at 16–24 (¶¶ 52–80).
26
3 Orders – ECF Nos. 47 (staging the claims), 96 (denying summary judgment), 113 (denying
27 interlocutory appeal).
4 Orders – ECF Nos. 100 (granting stipulation to stay certain pretrial deadlines), 125 (extending the
1 Circuit’s decisions in three similar cases that are currently on appeal.5 The court denies the motion
2 because a stay would potentially be harmful to the plaintiffs and would be inefficient.
3
4 LEGAL STANDARD
5 In Landis, the Supreme Court held that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power
6 inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time
7 and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
8 To determine whether a stay is appropriate, the court “must weigh competing interests and maintain
9 an even balance.” Id. at 254–55. The competing interests include “the possible damage which may
10 result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being
11 required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or
12 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.”
13 CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55); accord
14 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). “[I]f there is even a fair possibility”
15 that the stay will harm the non-moving party, the party seeking the stay “must make out a clear case
16 of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.
17
18 ANALYSIS
19 The defendants ask to stay the cases pending the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in three other
20 COVID-19 eviction-moratoria cases.6 All three cases are scheduled for oral argument on April 10,
21 2023. Jevons v. Inslee, No. 22-35050 (9th Cir. docketed Jan. 18, 2022); Iten v. Cnty. of Los
22 Angeles, No. 22-55480 (9th Cir. docketed May 12, 2022); El Papel, LLC v. City of Seattle, No. 22-
23 35656 (9th Cir. docketed Aug. 17, 2022). The court denies the motion.
24 First, there is a “fair possibility” that the plaintiffs would be harmed by a stay. For example,
25 plaintiff John Williams declares that his renter owes $60,000 in back rent under the ongoing
26
27
5 Mot. – ECF No. 115; Joinder by City of Oakland – ECF No. 123; Joinder by Alliance of Californians
for Community Empowerment Action – ECF No. 129.
1 moratoria, and that among other alleged harms, Mr. Williams has had to obtain mortgage
2 forbearance, borrow money from family members, and apply for food stamps in an effort not to
3 lose his property to foreclosure.7 Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112 (a stay was unwarranted in part
4 because “[u]nlike the plaintiffs in CMAX and Leyva, who sought only damages for past harm, the
5 Attorney General seeks injunctive relief against ongoing and future harm”).
6 The defendants contend that a stay will not cause real harm to the plaintiffs because their claims
7 for damages can be addressed later, the County’s moratorium will end on April 29, 2023, and the
8 plaintiffs have implicitly conceded a lack of harm by requesting previous stays.8 But the City
9 moratorium will remain in place. At the hearing, the city’s counsel talked about a proposal that will
10 be considered at some point to phase out the moratorium by September, but it has not been
11 presented to the City council yet. The Williams declaration shows a fair possibility of harm
12 resulting from the fact that the moratorium is ongoing. As for the plaintiffs’ previous stay requests,
13 they were a strategic decision to focus efforts on the quickest path to success.9 That path —
14 prioritizing the facial claims and then pursuing interlocutory appeal, if necessary — still enabled the
15 plaintiffs to pursue their claims. Now that the court denied an interlocutory appeal, the calculus
16 changes, and if the plaintiffs were delayed from pursuing their claims in the forum available to
17 them, harm would potentially result.
18 The defendants also contend that wasted discovery efforts will cause them harm from having
19 to go forward.10 “[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a ‘clear case
20 of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.” Id. In any case, it is unclear that the
21 discovery will be wasteful, as explained next.
22 Second, it would likely be inefficient to stay the cases because the three cases on appeal relate
23 to only some of the claims here, and discovery will likely overlap across the claims here.
24
25
26
7 Williams Decl. – ECF No. 128-2.
8 Mot. – ECF No. 115 at 5–7; Reply – ECF No. 129 at 3–7.
27
9 Opp’n – ECF No. 128 at 6–7.
] Of the cases on appeal, the defendants argued only that E/ Papel will simplify the present
2 || cases.!! E/ Papel is relevant only to the physical-takings claim.'* The other cases on appeal
3 similarly involve limited claims, and they also have standing and justiciability issues. In /ten, the
4 || district court held only that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert his Contracts Clause claim. /ten
5 || v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. CV2100486DDPJEMX, 2022 WL 1127880, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15,
6 || 2022). Jevons concerns only takings and Contracts Clause claims. Opening Br., Jevons, No. 22-
7 {| 35050 (9th Cir. June 24, 2022), ECF No. 10 at 25-26 (pp. 15-16). The appellees there also argue
8 mootness. Answering Br., Jevons, No. 22-35050 (9th Cir. June 24, 2022), ECF No. 17 at 15 (p. 3).
9 In the present cases, there are a variety of claims, discovery has not yet started, and discovery
10 || will likely overlap across claims. Thus, a stay would probably create inefficiency by delaying
11 discovery that is inevitable. The court therefore denies the motion to stay and lifts the existing stay.
13 CONCLUSION
14 The court denies the defendants’ motions to stay. This resolves ECF Nos. 115 (No. 22-cv-
3 15 || 01274-LB) and 57 (No. 22-cv-02705-LB).
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
i 17 Dated: April 7, 2023
Lp
19
LAUREL BEELER
20 United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
28 '? Order — ECF No. 113 at 11.