National Lifeline Association v. Batjer
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-08312
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In National Lifeline Association v. Batjer, Judge Chesney denied commissioners’ requests to clarify, amend, or stay an injunction and judgment.
The ruling directly affected the CPUC Commissioners, whose requests to clarify or change the May 5 order and judgment and to pause the injunction were denied. It also preserved the injunction affecting the commission and its staff as described in the opinion.
What happened
National Lifeline Association v. Batjer concerned the defendants’ request to clarify or change an earlier order and judgment that issued an injunction.
The court denied every part of the defendants’ motion. It refused to clarify the earlier order, modify the injunction, amend the judgment, or temporarily pause the injunction while the defendants pursued an appeal.
Judge Chesney ruled that no clarification or modification was necessary, that the defendants had not shown a valid basis to amend the judgment, and that they had not shown they were likely to succeed on appeal or would suffer serious harm without a stay.
The detailed version
- National Lifeline Association v. Batjer · No. 3:20-cv-08312
- Maxine Chesney
- July 8, 2021
Background
The defendants—Marybel Batjer, Clifford Rechtschaffen, Martha Guzman Aceves, Genevieve Shiroma, and Darcie Houck, identified in the opinion as the CPUC Commissioners—asked the court to clarify or amend its May 5, 2021 order and judgment and to temporarily stay, or pause, the permanent injunction issued in that order. National Lifeline Association opposed the motion.
The opinion also notes that, after the May 5 order, the CPUC Commissioners adopted Resolution L-611. According to the opinion, the resolution concluded that the May 5 order barred the commission and its staff from implementing or enforcing the $0 co-pay requirements for Tier 1 and Tier 2 California Wireless LifeLine Plans authorized in Decision 20-10-006, and issued an order consistent with that conclusion.
Rulings
The court denied each requested form of relief:
- Clarification of the May 5 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a): Denied because the court found that no clarification was necessary. - Modification of the permanent injunction under Rule 65(d)(1)(A): Denied because the court found that no modification was necessary, including any modification stating the reasons for issuing the injunction. - Clarification of what the injunction prohibits or requires under Rule 65(d)(1)(C): Denied because the court found that no clarification was necessary. The court also observed that the CPUC Commissioners’ resolution essentially acknowledged their understanding of their obligations under the injunction. - Amendment of the judgment under Rule 59(e): Denied because the CPUC Commissioners failed to show a legally recognizable basis for amending the judgment. - Stay of the injunction under Rule 62(d): Denied. The court stated that the CPUC Commissioners had not shown that they were likely to succeed on the merits and had not argued or presented evidence that they would suffer irreparable injury without a stay. They had requested a stay through November 30, 2021, or long enough to seek a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Disposition
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied the defendants’ motion for clarification, amendment, and stay. The opinion does not state that the earlier injunction or judgment was dissolved or otherwise changed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.