SPRAWLDEF v. City of Richmond
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-03918
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In SPRAWLDEF v. City of Richmond, Judge Rogers denied an extension, vacated the pleadings schedule, and ordered statements about an appeal’s jurisdictional effect.
SPRAWLDEF and the other petitioners, the City of Richmond and its related respondents, Upstream Point Molate, LLC, and the Guidiville Rancheria of California were affected by the vacated schedule and the required statements about the pending appeal.
What happened
SPRAWLDEF challenged a stipulated judgment involving the City of Richmond, Upstream Point Molate, LLC, and the Guidiville Rancheria of California. The Tribe appealed an earlier order rejecting its claim of tribal sovereign immunity.
The City later filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that a revised judgment and related City Council actions resolved the petition. The parties then sought more time under an agreed schedule.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the agreed request for an extension without prejudice, vacated the briefing and hearing schedule for the motion, and ordered the parties to submit statements about how the pending appeal affects the court’s jurisdiction. The court did not decide the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The detailed version
- SPRAWLDEF v. City of Richmond · No. 4:18-cv-03918
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
SPRAWLDEF and other petitioners challenged an April 12, 2018 stipulated judgment involving the City of Richmond, Upstream Point Molate, LLC, and the Guidiville Rancheria of California. The matter had been removed from state court. The City initially moved to dismiss, but withdrew that motion and filed an answer instead.
The Tribe later moved to dismiss based on tribal sovereign immunity and argued that the case could not proceed without the Tribe. The court denied that motion on June 19, 2019, concluding that the Tribe had waived its sovereign immunity. The Tribe appealed that order five days later. The court then concluded that it could not proceed on the merits of the petition while the appeal was pending.
Petitioners later filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which they withdrew without prejudice after a hearing. In a related case, the City, the Tribe, and Upstream submitted a revised proposed judgment, which the related court entered on November 12, 2019. The City then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the petition had been resolved by the revised judgment and by the City Council’s public hearing and vote. Upstream joined that motion.
Court’s action
The court denied the parties’ stipulated request for an extension of the briefing schedule on the motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice. It also vacated the motion’s briefing and hearing schedule.
The court stated that, because the Tribe’s appeal was pending, it appeared to lack jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the petition, including the motion for judgment on the pleadings. It directed the City, Upstream, the petitioners, and the specially appearing Tribe to file statements of no more than five pages by November 26, 2019, explaining their positions on how the appeal affected the court’s ability to rule on the motion. The order stated that it terminated Docket No. 91.
Disposition and significance
This order did not decide the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the petition’s merits, or the effect of the revised judgment. It denied the extension request without prejudice, vacated the existing schedule, and required briefing limited to the jurisdictional effect of the pending appeal. The order was signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.