Uberti v. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-04025
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Uberti v. Brown, Judge Alsup denied George Uberti’s motion to stay an earlier dismissal while his appeal was pending.
George Uberti’s request to pause the earlier judgment was denied; the opinion states that the judgment granted no affirmative relief to the defendants.
What happened
George Uberti, representing himself, sued Valerie Brown and others over alleged Sherman Act violations connected to the consolidation of two Sonoma County offices. The court had already dismissed the case and denied Uberti’s request for summary judgment.
After appealing that judgment, Uberti asked the court to pause it while the appeal continued. The court said he had not addressed the four requirements for a stay: likely success, irreparable harm, effects on other parties, and the public interest.
Assuming it had authority to decide the request, Judge William Alsup denied Uberti’s motion to stay. The court found no likely financial injury, no effect on the other parties, and no shown public interest because Uberti had not shown actual harm from the office consolidation.
The detailed version
- Uberti v. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors · No. 3:19-cv-04025
- William Alsup
- Apr. 2, 2020
Background
George Uberti, who was representing himself, brought a Sherman Act action against a County and officials and employees identified in the opinion as Valerie Brown, Susan Gorin, Michael Kerns, David Rabbitt, Timothy Smith, Shirlee Zane, Paul Kelley, Michael McGuire, James Gore, Michael Reilly, Efren Carrillo, Lynda Hopkins, Rodney Dole, Donna Dunk, David Sundstrom, Erick Roeser, Robert Boitano, and Jonathan Kadlec. Uberti’s allegations followed the County’s consolidation of the Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector into one operational office. The opinion states that state legislation permitted the governmental action.
In a February 21 order, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Uberti’s motion for summary judgment. Uberti appealed the judgment and then moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) to stay, or pause, the judgment while the appeal proceeded.
Legal standard
The court stated that a party seeking a stay must show four things: likely success on the merits, irreparable injury without a stay, no injury to the other parties, and that the public interest favors the stay. The court noted that Uberti’s motion did not address any of these elements. The court also said that, based on the procedural history and facts presented in earlier filings, Uberti appeared unable to meet the standards for a stay.
Court’s analysis
The court first found that judgment had already been entered on the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, making Uberti unlikely to succeed on the merits of the request. Second, it found that Uberti could not show financial injury because the judgment granted no affirmative relief to the defendants. Third, because no affirmative relief had been granted, the court found that a stay would not affect the parties. Fourth, the court found no evident public interest because Uberti had not shown actual harm to himself or others caused by the consolidation of the offices.
The court stated that it was assuming it had jurisdiction to decide the motion. It then denied Uberti’s motion to stay the February 21 order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.