Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Background

Cyrus Hazari filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2024, by the court’s deadline. He stated that the complaint was filed under protest and still needed amendment. He also had not submitted proposed summonses. On May 16, 2024, Hazari filed a notice of appeal from the court’s order denying a motion for rehearing and asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the case while the appeal was pending.

The court had previously allowed Hazari to amend his complaint to plead claims based on alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hazari argued that requiring him to fully participate in the litigation would cause irreparable injury because of his medical conditions. The court stated that it had not ordered him to fully participate; it had set deadlines to amend the complaint, submit proposed summonses, and serve the defendants.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the standards for a stay pending appeal, which are similar to the standards for a preliminary injunction. It considered four factors: whether Hazari showed a strong likelihood of success on appeal, whether he would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure other parties, and where the public interest lay.

The court found that Hazari had not shown a likelihood of success because he had filed an amended complaint by the required deadline, even though he said it was incomplete. The court also found no irreparable injury because it had not required him to fully participate in the litigation. Hazari had not filed summonses, but the court noted that he had 90 days from May 3, 2024—until August 19, 2024, under the court’s calculation—to serve the defendants. Because the defendants had not been served, the factor concerning harm to other parties weighed in favor of granting a stay. The court nevertheless concluded that the public interest favored moving the case forward, which had been pending for nearly three years.

Disposition

The court DENIED Hazari’s motion to stay pending appeal. The court also found good cause to extend, on its own initiative, Hazari’s deadline to obtain summonses and serve the defendants. It ordered him to serve the defendants by October 31, 2024, and stated that it would dismiss the case if he failed to meet that deadline.