Summary
This document is a United States District Court order approving the defendants' motion to vacate a previously scheduled settlement conference. The defendants moved to vacate the conference after filing an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Relying on controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court found that the appeal automatically divested it of jurisdiction over the remaining claims, requiring the conference to be canceled.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the filing of an interlocutory appeal automatically divests the district court of jurisdiction to hold a settlement conference.
Holdings
- The filing of the interlocutory appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the case, requiring the settlement conference to be vacated.
Key quotations
“The filing of Defendants’ interlocutory appeal based on qualified immunity has divested this Court of jurisdiction over the claims which remain in this lawsuit, and the settlement conference scheduled for February 12, 2025, must be vacated.” (at end)
Factual background
Plaintiff Jacob Smith sued Defendants Isidro Baca, Charles Daniels, and Edward Gibson. The district court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's claim of qualified immunity. Defendants appealed the denial and sought to vacate a settlement conference.
Procedural history
The district court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment and qualified immunity. Defendants then filed an interlocutory appeal of that order and moved to vacate the settlement conference scheduled for February 12, 2025.