N I T E D
T A T E S
I S T R I C T
O U R T
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
The Ninth Circuit has set the parties’ briefing schedule, but has not set the matter for hearing.
Oakland v. Holder
, Case No. 13-15391, Dkt. No. 18.2applicable to civil forfeiture actions; and (2) the Government is equitably estopped from seekingforfeiture of the defendant property based on the Government’s past representations and conduct.Compl. at 13-15. Oakland’s lawsuit, however, came to a halt on February 14, 2013, when the Courtgranted the Government’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 53.Specifically, the Court agreed with the Government that Oakland had failed to demonstrate that theforfeiture proceeding against the 1840 Embarcadero property constitutes “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in court,” pursuant to § 704 of the Administrative ProcedureAct.
. at 5-9. As a result, there is no waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity under theAPA for Oakland’s action, mandating dismissal.
.On February 29, 2013, Oakland appealed this Court’s dismissal order to the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals.
Oakland v. Holder
, Case No. 13-15391, Dkt. No. 1. Concurrently, Oakland filed the instant Motion to Stay Forfeiture Proceedings Pending Appeal. Dkt. No. 56. In its Motion,Oakland requests that the Court stay all proceedings in the
action until the NinthCircuit has ruled on its appeal.
It asserts that a stay is necessary to protect its ability to litigate theclaims it asserted in its Complaint should the Ninth Circuit reverse this Court’s dismissal, as well asto prevent irreparable harm to its citizens in the interim period. The Government opposes Oakland’sMotion, arguing that Oakland cannot stay an action to which it is not a party; that the Court lacks jurisdiction to stay the
because it would change the status quo; and that even if jurisdiction exists, Oakland has failed to satisfy the applicable standard for a stay or an injunction.Ana Chretien (the owner and landlord of the 1840 Embarcadero property) and Harborside have joined in Oakland’s Motion. Dkt. Nos. 58, 59.On June 20, 2013, the Court held a hearing on this matter. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments and controlling authorities, the Court now
Case3:12-cv-03566-MEJ Document83 Filed07/03/13 Page2 of 13