Sean Moore v. City and County of San Francisco
- Susan Illston
- 3:18-cv-00634
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Moore v. City and County of San Francisco: Judge Illston granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify defendants’ qualified-immunity appeal as frivolous.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Loyce Amos Moore, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.; the ruling allowed the district court to continue handling the case despite defendants’ appeal.
What happened
In Loyce Amos Moore v. City and County of San Francisco, the court had previously granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions for summary judgment. It had denied defendants’ qualified-immunity defense because factual disputes remained.
Defendants appealed that ruling and argued that the appeal was immediately allowed and that the appeal prevented the district court from continuing. Plaintiffs asked the court to certify the appeal as frivolous, meaning it lacked a valid basis for an immediate appeal.
Judge Susan Illston ruled that the district court could decide whether the appeal was frivolous and granted plaintiffs’ motion. She also changed the scheduled pretrial conference into a status conference and temporarily suspended the deadline for pretrial filings because of a COVID-19 surge and interruptions in court proceedings.
The detailed version
- Sean Moore v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:18-cv-00634
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 8, 2021
Background
On December 10, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the parties’ summary judgment motions. The court denied defendants’ qualified-immunity defense because resolving it required deciding factual disputes that could not be resolved on the existing record.
Defendants filed a notice of appeal from that order on December 23, 2020. Plaintiffs then filed a motion asking the court to certify the appeal as frivolous, along with a motion to shorten the time for considering that request.
Jurisdiction and Appeal
Defendants argued that the qualified-immunity ruling was immediately appealable and that their appeal had deprived the district court of authority to act. The court relied on Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions explaining that a district court may certify that a qualified-immunity appeal is frivolous and proceed with the case. Those decisions also provide that an order denying qualified immunity because genuine factual disputes exist is not a final, immediately appealable order.
The court concluded that it retained jurisdiction over the matter. It also stated that prompt action was necessary because pretrial and trial deadlines were approaching.
Ruling
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion certifying the appeal as frivolous.
Because of a recent COVID-19 surge in the San Francisco Bay Area and related interruptions in court proceedings, the court converted the January 26, 2021 pretrial conference into a status conference to discuss next steps. The deadline for pretrial filings was temporarily suspended.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.