Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 31, 2022

Mendelson v. San Mateo County

Judge
Alex Tse
Docket
3:20-cv-05696
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mendelson v. San Mateo County, Judge Tse requested briefing on whether to pause the case until a related Ninth Circuit appeal is decided.

Who this affects

Felix Mendelson and San Mateo County, the parties to the case.

What happened

Mendelson v. San Mateo County involves a dispute that the court said shares similarities with a case pending before the Ninth Circuit, Ralston v. County of San Mateo.

The court said the Ninth Circuit’s decision could affect how this case proceeds and might bind the court. To conserve the parties’ and court’s resources, it said pausing the case appeared appropriate.

The court did not order the pause at this stage. Instead, Judge Alex G. Tse asked both sides to submit supplemental briefs by February 11, 2022, explaining whether they favored a stay and why.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mendelson v. San Mateo County · No. 3:20-cv-05696
Judge
Alex Tse
Date
Jan. 31, 2022

Background

Felix Mendelson sued San Mateo County. The court noted that a related appeal, Ralston v. County of San Mateo, involved a case with many similarities. That appeal concerned a decision applying Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, a Supreme Court opinion issued while this case was on appeal. The Ninth Circuit had remanded this case for reconsideration.

Requested briefing

The court said the Ninth Circuit’s analysis in the related appeal could influence or bind this court and affect how Mendelson’s case proceeds. It therefore stated that a stay—a temporary pause in further proceedings—seemed warranted to conserve the parties’ and court’s resources.

Ruling and next steps

The court did not enter a stay in this order. Instead, Judge Alex G. Tse ordered each side to file a supplemental brief by February 11, 2022, addressing whether the parties favored a stay and, if so or if not, why. The order allowed the parties to stipulate to a reasonable extension if more time was needed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.