1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARGARITA GONZALEZ, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09769-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION FOR AUTOMATIC 30-DAY STAY 10 CF WATSONVILLE WEST, LLC, et al., Docket No. 21 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 On January 26, 2022, the Court issued an order remanding the case back to state court due 15 to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court rejected Defendants’ arguments that (1) the 16 federal PREP Act completely preempted Plaintiffs’ state law claims; (2) Plaintiffs’ allegations 17 presented a substantial, embedded question of federal law; and (3) the federal officer removal 18 statute (

) permitted removal. See Docket No. 19 (order). 19 The following day, January 27, 2022, Defendants filed a motion asking that the Court stay 20 its remand order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a). This is the motion currently 21 pending before the Court. Having considered the parties’ briefs, the Court hereby DENIES 22 Defendants’ motion. 23 Rule 62(a) provides for an automatic stay: “execution on a judgment and proceedings to 24 enforce it are stayed for 30 days after its entry, unless the court orders otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 62(a) (emphasis added). Although, in the instant action, the Court did not issue a formal judgment 26 in remanding the case, Defendants maintain that there was a judgment in effect because Rule 54(a) 27 defines a judgment as “a decree and any order from which an appeal lies,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), 1 to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal,” there is an exception – 2 i.e., “an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 3 1442 . . . of this title [i.e., the federal removal statute] shall be reviewable by appeal.”

1447(d) (emphasis added). 5 For purposes of this order, the Court accepts Defendants’ proposition that there has been a 6 judgment. Defendants have provided decisions where, implicitly, courts have held that there were 7 judgments in comparable circumstances. See, e.g., Mot., Ex. 2-5, 8-14. Under Rule 62(a) then, 8 there should be an automatic stay “unless the court orders otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a). In 9 the exercise of its discretion, the Court orders that there shall be no stay. Although some courts 10 have stayed in analogous cases, many courts have not. Defendants’ anticipated appeal is 11 predicated on the federal officer removal statute but that argument plainly lacks merit, as 12 numerous courts have held, including this one. As the court held in Sorace v. Orinda Care Ctr., 13 LLC, No. 21-cv-05714-EMC,

, at *29-31 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2021), 14 Defendants’ allegations fail to show that their actions were taken pursuant to a federal officer’s 15 directions; the mere fact of government regulations and public directives regarding the response to 16 COVID-19 was not sufficient. Accordingly, a stay, particularly for more than thirty days, is 17 unwarranted.1 See Estate of Moore v. FH & HF-Torrance I, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-08548-MCS-RAO, 18

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2022) (noting that “[s]everal courts, 19 including this one, have declined to stay remand orders in similar COVID-19 wrongful death cases 20 removed on the clearly unmeritorious federal officer jurisdiction theory presented here”); Burton 21 v. Silverado Escondido, LLC, No. 21-cv-1213-WQH-RBB,

, at 22 *23-24 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2021) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate that “the 23 circumstances justify a stay in this case” and therefore declining to stay the remand order); 24 Carrillo v. Sela Healthcare, No. 5:21-cv-00150-FLA (SPx),

, at 25 *13-14 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2021) (stating that, “[s]ince the great weight of authority that considered 26 the same argument regarding federal officer jurisdiction under similar facts has found it meritless, 27 1 the court declines to stay the remand pending an appeal”); see also Thomas v. Century Villa Inc., 2 No. 2:21-cv-03013-MCS-KS,

, at *17 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2021) 3 (taking note of defendant’s request to stay remand under Rule 62(a) so that it could appeal the 4 denial of federal officer jurisdiction, but declining to issue the stay); Smith v. Colonial Care Ctr. 5 Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00494-RGK-PD,

, at *23-24 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 6 2021) (holding the same). 7 To the extent Defendants have now suggested that there should be a Landis stay because of 8 the appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit in Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, No. 20- 9 56194 (9th Cir.), which addresses similar issues, the Court rejects that argument as well. 10 Defendants have waived the Landis argument by not timely raising it (e.g., when they filed their 11 motion to dismiss). 12 This order disposes of Docket No. 21. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: February 17, 2022 17 18 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27