Children's Health Defense v. Facebook Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-05787
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook Inc., Judge Susan Illston denied a request to pause the judgment or obtain an indicative ruling.
The ruling directly affected Children’s Health Defense’s effort to pause the judgment concerning its claims against Science Feedback and obtain a ruling about service and related timing issues.
What happened
Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook Inc. involved the plaintiff’s request to pause the judgment dismissing its claims against Science Feedback. The court had earlier granted dismissal motions filed by Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Politifact, and had dismissed the claims against Science Feedback without prejudice because Science Feedback had not been served or appeared.
Children’s Health Defense argued that evidence showed diligence and expense supporting more time to serve Science Feedback, and it requested additional time to bring those claims. It also asked the court to say how it would rule if the appeals court sent the issues back. The court concluded that the request came too late because the plaintiff had received the service documents before filing its appeal.
The court denied the motion and vacated the hearing. Judge Susan Illston ruled that filing the appeal removed the trial court’s authority over the appealed issues, and that an indicative ruling was not appropriate because the current record did not allow findings about attempted service on Science Feedback.
The detailed version
- Children's Health Defense v. Facebook Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-05787
- Susan Illston
- Aug. 30, 2021
Background
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed the case on August 17, 2020. In an order filed June 29, 2021, the court granted motions to dismiss the second amended complaint filed by Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Politifact. The court also dismissed CHD’s claims against Science Feedback without prejudice, finding that the record showed Science Feedback had not been served and had not appeared in the case. The court entered judgment on June 30, and CHD filed a notice of appeal on July 20.
Motion
On July 27, CHD moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(h) to stay, or pause, the judgment of dismissal without prejudice as to Science Feedback. Alternatively, CHD requested an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1—an explanation of how the court would rule if the appeals court returned the issue for that limited purpose. CHD asserted that evidence showed diligence and expense supporting good cause to extend the time for foreign service on Science Feedback back to June 24, 2021. CHD also requested equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for its claims against Science Feedback from August 17, 2020, until the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that CHD’s request was too late. CHD stated that it received the service-related documents on July 15, before filing its notice of appeal. The court said CHD should have requested relief before filing the appeal. Once CHD filed the notice of appeal, the trial court was divested of authority over the parts of the case involved in the appeal. Because the appealed order and judgment addressed CHD’s claims against Science Feedback, those matters were before the Ninth Circuit.
The court also concluded that an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 was not appropriate because the current record did not allow the court to make findings about attempted service on Science Feedback.
Disposition
The court vacated the scheduled hearing and denied CHD’s motion to stay the judgment. It also declined to issue the requested indicative ruling. The order was signed by United States District Judge Susan Illston.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.