State of CA v. Del Rosa

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 State of California, No. 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Phillip Del Rosa, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Defendants move to stay the court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. Mot., ECF | No. 73. The motion is fully briefed, Opp’n, ECF No. 76; Reply, ECF No. 77, and the matter was | submitted without oral arguments, Briefing Order, ECF No. 74. The motion is denied.

20 “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. | Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (citation omitted). Four considerations guide judicial | discretion in ruling on a motion to stay: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong | showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably | injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties | interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” /d. at 434 (citation omitted).

26 The court has already considered and rejected the arguments defendants make in this | motion. See, e.g., Prelim. Inj. Order, ECF No. 43; Mot. Dismiss Order at 10 & n.2, ECF No. 58; | Contempt Order, ECF No. 71. The court declines to revisit its prior decisions, nor can it—this | matter is not before the court on a motion for reconsideration and is currently on appeal. See | Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (“As a general rule, the filing of a notice of | appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the | appeal.”). For the reasons articulated in those prior orders, the court finds defendants have not | shown they are likely to succeed on the merits. Even if the court were to find defendants have | shown serious legal questions are raised by their appeal, they have not shown the balance of | hardships tips sharply in their favor. See Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 971 (9th Cir. | 2011). First, as the court previously observed, “[t]he harm [Darren Rose] would face is the net | revenue loss from paying applicable taxes to California and otherwise complying with state law.”

10 | Prelim. Inj. Order at 23. The injunction does not prohibit anyone from lawfully engaging in the | cigarette business in compliance with applicable federal law. See generally id. Second, for the | reasons the court noted previously, the balance of hardships sharply weighs in favor of California.

13 | See id. at 23-24.

14 Moreover, the court’s preliminary injunction order was issued more than six months ago.

15 | See generally id. Defendants immediately appealed the injunction, Notice of Appeal, ECF No. | 44, but did not move for a stay pending appeal. However, now that the court has held Mr. Rose | contempt, defendants move for a stay, raising the same arguments the court has previously | rejected. By requesting a stay at this juncture, it appears defendants are asking the court to | sanction continued noncompliance with the court’s injunction, which the court declines to do.

20 | The court heeds the Ninth Circuit’s repeated admonition not to delay proceedings “to await an | interim ruling on a preliminary injunction,” California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 583 (9th Cir. 2018), | and declines to exercise its discretion to grant a stay pending appeal, see Sports Form, Inc. v. | United Press Int'l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982) (“[I]n many cases, appeal of district | courts’ preliminary injunctions will result in unnecessary delay to the parties and inefficient use | of judicial resources.”).

26 The motion is denied. This order resolves ECF No. 73.

27 IT IS SO ORDERED.

28 DATED: April 22, 2024. ( | y Wank ( □□□ CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE