National Lifeline Association v. Batjer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL LIFELINE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 20-cv-08312-MMC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' v. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION,

AMENDMENT, AND STAY

MARYBEL BATJER, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is defendants Marybel Batjer, Clifford Rechtschaffen, Martha Guzman Aceves, Genevieve Shiroma, and Darcie Houck's (hereinafter, "CPUC Commissioners") "Motion for Clarification or Amendment of Order Issuing Injunction (ECF 34) and Judgment (ECF 35) and Temporary Stay," filed June 2, 2021. Plaintiff National Lifeline Association ("NaLA") has filed opposition, to which CPUC Commissioners have replied.

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court hereby DENIES the motion, as follows:1

1. To the extent CPUC Commissioners seek, pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, clarification of the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed May 5, 2021 ("hereinafter, May 5 Order"), the motion is DENIED. The Court finds, for the reasons stated by NaLA, no clarification is necessary. (See Pl.'s Opp. at 7:6-8:19.)

2. To the extent CPUC Commissioners seek, pursuant to Rule 65(d)(1)(A), modification of the permanent injunction issued in the May 5 Order, in particular, to "state the reasons why [the injunction] is issued" (see Defs.' Mot. at 6:8-9), the motion is DENIED. The Court finds, for the reasons stated by NaLA, no such modification is 1 necessary. (See Pl.'s Opp. at 7:6-8:19, 9:5-7.)

2 3. To the extent CPUC Commissioners seek, pursuant to Rule 65(d)(1)(C), || clarification of "what action the order prohibits or requires" (see Defs.' Mot. at 7:12-13), || the motion is DENIED. The Court finds, for the reasons stated by NaLA, no clarification || of the injunction is necessary. (See PI.'s Opp. at 10:26-11:37.) Indeed, CPUC || Commissioners, in a recently adopted Resolution, have essentially acknowledged their || understanding of their obligations thereunder.”

8 4. To the extent CPUC Commissioners seek, pursuant to Rule 59(e), amendment || of the Judgment, the motion is DENIED. The Court finds, for the reasons stated by NaLA, CPUC Commissioners have failed to show there exists a cognizable ground for amendment. (See Pl.s' Opp. at 12:3-13:24.)

5. To the extent CPUC Commissioners seek, pursuant to Rule 62(d), a stay of the || injunction, either through November 30, 2021, the last date on which Decision 20-10-006 ©

0 14 is effective, or, in the alternative, through a date sufficient to allow them to seek a stay O

15 || from the Ninth Circuit, the motion is DENIED, CPUC Commissioners having failed to Q 16 || show they are "likely to succeed on the merits" and having made no argument, let alone Cc

17 || offered evidence to show, they "will be irreparably injured absent a stay." See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (setting forth "factors" to be considered when appellant seeks stay pending appeal; noting likelihood of success and irreparable injury are "the most critical").

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2021 ; .

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge > Subsequent to issuance of the May 5 Order, CPUC Commissioners, on June 3, 2021, adopted Resolution L-611, in which they (1) "conclu[ded]" that, "[pJer the District Court's May 5, 2021 Order, the Commission and its staff are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the $0 co-pay requirements’ for Tier 1 (Basic) and Tier 2 (Standard) California Wireless LifeLine Plans authorized in D.20-10-006," and (2) issued their own order consistent therewith. See https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M385/K985/385985125.PDF.