Opinion
02:04-cv-1290-GEB-GGH.
February 22, 2006
ORDER
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).
On January 30, 2006, Defendants John S. Wrysinski, Donald F. Stanton, and David J. Shoemaker (collectively "Defendants") moved for an order staying these proceedings until the Ninth Circuit decides their appeal. The motion concerns Defendants' Notice of Appeal filed January 13, 2006, in which they challenge this Court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that because their motion for summary judgment included a claim of qualified immunity, the denial of their summary judgment motion and subsequent appeal result in an automatic stay under Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1992).
Defendants' argument fails because this Court did not "arrive at a final, appealable decision on [whether Defendants are entitled to] qualified immunity." Way v. County of Ventura, 348 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied because Defendants failed to comply with Local Rule 56-260(a)'s requirement that motions for summary judgment be accompanied by a statement of undisputed facts; and Defendants' request to file another motion for summary judgment was denied because Defendants' failed to satisfy Rule 16's good cause standard when seeking to modify the law and motion deadline set by the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Neither denial involves the type of decision that is subject to an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, Defendants' interlocutory appeal is frivolous, and their stay motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.