Diviacchi v. Stallings
- Edward Chen
- 3:24-cv-07827
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Diviacchi v. Stallings, Judge Chen denied Diviacchi’s motion to vacate without prejudice and granted his request for more time to appeal.
The ruling directly affected Valeriano Diviacchi and the defendants. The judgment was not vacated at this stage, but the court allowed Diviacchi additional time to appeal and directed the parties to seek vacatur after the amended State Bar rule takes effect.
What happened
In Diviacchi v. Stallings, the court had entered a final judgment against Valeriano Diviacchi and for the defendants. After the court denied his request to change that judgment, Diviacchi asked to vacate the judgment because the California Supreme Court had approved a change to State Bar Rule 4.41.
The defendants said the dispute would become moot once the amended rule took effect, because Diviacchi would no longer be barred from submitting a moral character application. But they argued that the motion was premature because the amendment would not take effect until June 23, 2025.
Judge Edward Chen agreed that the motion was premature and denied it without prejudice. He directed the parties to file a joint stipulation and proposed order on June 23 seeking to vacate the judgment, and granted Diviacchi a 30-day extension of time to appeal.
The detailed version
- Diviacchi v. Stallings · No. 3:24-cv-07827
- Edward Chen
- May 19, 2025
Background
The court had previously entered a final judgment against Plaintiff Valeriano Diviacchi and in favor of Defendants. The court later denied Diviacchi’s motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend that judgment. Diviacchi stated that he intended to appeal and then moved under Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) to vacate the judgment and related orders.
Diviacchi argued that vacatur was justified because, after the judgment, the California Supreme Court approved the State Bar’s proposed amendment to State Bar Rule 4.41. Once effective, the amended rule would mean that the version of Rule 4.41 challenged by Diviacchi would no longer exist.
Defendants’ position
Defendants did not agree with Diviacchi’s reasoning about why vacatur was warranted. They acknowledged, however, that the dispute would become moot once the amendment took effect because Diviacchi would no longer be barred from submitting a moral character application. Defendants therefore stated that they did not oppose vacating the judgment on mootness grounds once the revised rule became effective. They opposed the motion at that time because the amendment would not take effect until June 23, 2025.
Ruling
The court agreed that Diviacchi’s motion was premature and denied it. The court directed the parties to file a joint stipulation and proposed order on June 23, 2025, asking that the judgment be vacated in light of the amended rule. The court stated that it was inclined to approve that stipulation once filed.
The court also addressed Diviacchi’s request for a 30-day extension of the time to appeal. Although Defendants opposed the extension, the court granted it based on the circumstances, including the timing of the California Supreme Court’s approval and Defendants’ agreement that the case would become moot when the amendment took effect. The court explained that requiring an immediate appeal could result in a pointless appeal that would become moot. Accordingly, the court denied Diviacchi’s motion for relief without prejudice, granted the extension of time to appeal, and stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 37 and 39.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.