Infante v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-06892
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Infante v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Gilliam stayed the proposed class action while the Ninth Circuit considers tire chalking.
The case’s plaintiff, Maria Infante, and the City and County of San Francisco are affected because the case was paused while the Ninth Circuit considered related legal issues. The order did not decide the claims or the motion to dismiss.
What happened
Maria Infante brought a proposed class action against the City and County of San Francisco, alleging that marking car tires to enforce parking rules is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The City argued that tire marking is not a search and is reasonable even if it is one.
The court stayed the case because the Ninth Circuit is considering the same central legal issues in Verdun v. City of San Diego. The court said waiting for that decision would likely prevent wasted resources, and neither party identified harm or hardship from the stay. The parties must notify the court when the Ninth Circuit issues its decision, or file a status report by September 9, 2022, if it has not done so.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the case stayed on June 7, 2022. The order did not decide whether tire chalking violates the Fourth Amendment or resolve the City’s motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Infante v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO · No. 3:21-cv-06892
- Charles Breyer
- June 7, 2022
Background
Maria Infante filed a proposed class action challenging San Francisco’s practice of “chalking,” which the opinion describes as physically marking car tires to enforce parking ordinances. The complaint alleges that chalking is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The City and County of San Francisco moved to dismiss, arguing that chalking is not a search and, alternatively, that it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The parties acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit was considering the central legal issues in a separate appeal, Verdun v. City of San Diego.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that federal courts may stay, or pause, proceedings to manage their dockets efficiently. It considered the potential damage, hardship, and inequity that could result from a stay, as well as whether the stay would simplify the issues, evidence, and legal questions.
The court found that waiting for Ninth Circuit guidance in Verdun would likely prevent the parties and the court from wasting resources. It also found that neither party had identified potential damage, hardship, or inequity resulting from the stay.
Order
The case was STAYED. The parties were ordered to immediately notify the court through a joint submission when the Ninth Circuit issues an opinion or memorandum decision in Verdun. If no decision had issued by September 9, 2022, the parties were directed to file a joint status report of no more than two pages.
The order did not decide the Fourth Amendment question and did not resolve the City’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.