Alaniz v. U.S. Renal, Inc.

RESPONSE to 56 MOTION to Stay Judgment

S.D. Tex.February 8, 2019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION JUAN ALANIZ, Plaintiff, v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-146 Jury Trial Demanded DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT COMES NOW Defendant U.S. Renal Care, Inc. (“Defendant”), and files this its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Entry of Final Judgment. Defendant shows as follows: I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiff Juan Alaniz (“Plaintiff”) brought this civil action against his previous employer, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 2. On August 28, 2018, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support [Dkt. No. 38]. 3. On December 19, 2018, this Court entered a sealed order that granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of Defendant [Dkt. No. 54] (the “Order”), and at that time ordered the Clerk of the Court to close this case. 4. To properly effectuate the Order, Defendant requested the entry of a Final Judgment [Dkt. No. 55] consistent with the Court’s December 19, 2018 Order. 5. On January 18, Plaintiff filed both his Notice of Appeal [Dkt. No. 57], and a Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal [Dkt. No 56]. Case 1:17-cv-00146 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/19 Page 1 of 5 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Final Judgment Is Necessary to Resolve Existing Ambiguities in the Record. 6. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion to stay the entry of judgment in this case in order to resolve any uncertainties in the docket sheet and the applicable appellate deadlines. The crux of Defendant’s Motion to Enter Final Judgment was to have the Court’s docket reflect that judgment had been entered in the case as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b). Once a final judgment has been entered denying all relief to Plaintiff, the clerk must promptly prepare, sign, and enter a judgment in a separate document. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(1). This entry of the judgment on the civil docket is required for a judgment to be effective. Fed. R. Civ. P. 79(a)(1), (a)(2)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b). This is crucial step in the appellate process as the date of entry by the clerk is the controlling date for appellate deadlines, even if an order or judgment is signed by the court and entered on the docket on different days. U.S. v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 287 (3d. Cir. 2003). 7. Furthermore, where, as here, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58(a) requires that a judgment be a separate document1, a judgment is considered entered after the following occur: (a) the judgment is entered on the civil docket under FCRP 79(a); and (b) either the judgment is set out in a separate document or 150 days have run from the entry of the judgment on the civil docket, whichever comes first. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2). As such, the deadline for an appeal begins to run from the entry of the judgment on the docket. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1),(a)(7).2 1 Per Rule 58, every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document, but a separate document is not required for an order disposing of a motion:(1) for judgment under Rule 50(b); (2) to amend or make additional findings under Rule 52(b); (3) for attorney's fees under Rule 54; (4) for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59; or (5) for relief under Rule 60. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). 2 In case where a court order was similarly sealed, it was found that the sealed entry of judgment following defendant's guilty plea to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine was not “entered on the criminal docket,” within meaning of Case 1:17-cv-00146 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/19 Page 2 of 5 8. In the instant case, the Plaintiff concedes in his Notice of Appeal that the Order is a final judgment. [Dkt. No. 57] (“Plaintiff… hereby appeal[s] to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the final judgment in in Judge Rolando Olvera’s Order [Doc. No. 54] GRANTING Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment)(emphasis added). Despite the fact that a judgment had not yet been entered, Plaintiff prematurely filed his notice of appeal. In an effort to resolve the existing ambiguities in the record, and to have a final, appealable judgment, the Court must enter a final judgment in this case. 9. Finally, the entry of judgment does not prejudice Plaintiff’s appeal since his intent has already been filed with the court. A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision, sentence, or order, but filed before entry of the judgment or order, is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry. Manrique v. U.S., 137 S.Ct. 1266 (2017). For these reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion, and enter a final judgment in this case. B. Alternatively, Plaintiff Failed to Provide Sufficient Information to Justify a Stay. 10. In the alternative, Plaintiff’s motion should fail because he did not provide any justification to keep the court from entering a final judgment. The purpose of a stay pending appeal is to mitigate the damage that could be done before the matter is substantively resolved. A stay, however, is an “intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review” and a party is not entitled to a stay as a matter of right. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of [the Court's] discretion.” Id. at 433–34. 11. To determine whether a district court should grant a discretionary stay pending an appeal, district courts employ the following four-factor test:: “(1) whether the stay applicant has rule of appellate procedure governing time for filing notice of appeal, as judgment was not publicly accessible. U.S. v. Mendoza, 698 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2012). Case 1:17-cv-00146 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/19 Page 3 of 5 made a strong showing that he [or she] is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. at 434. 12. Far from justifying a stay of proceedings, the interests of judicial economy and efficiency strongly militate in favor of the Court denying the stay. This Court’s issuance of a final judgment denying Plaintiff’s causes of action would permit the Fifth Circuit to review the case in a single proceeding after a final judgment, rather than adopting a potentially cumbersome piecemeal approach requested by Plaintiff. Any issues that could potentially arise after the entry of judgment can be dealt with by the Fifth Circuit during a single appeal. Furthermore, entering the final judgment does not immediately change Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s legal status quo. There is no prejudice to either party that cannot be dealt with on appeal if final judgment is entered. 13. Plaintiff did not provide any justification of why a stay of the entry of a final judgment is needed, or even allowed, in this case. As such, he has not met his initial burden to demonstrate why a stay is necessary. Therefore, he is not entitled to extraordinary relief, and his motion to stay entry of final judgment should be denied. III. CONCLUSION 14. For these reasons, Defendant asks the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion and enter final judgment in favor of Defendant. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lara C. de Leon Lara C. de Leon Attorney-In-Charge Texas Bar No. 24006957 So. Dist. No. 358139 lara.deleon@ogletree.com Case 1:17-cv-00146 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/19 Page 4 of 5 Raven R. Applebaum Of Counsel Texas Bar No. 24043644 So. Dist. No. 1117871 raven.applebaum@ogletree.com Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2700 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone: (210) 354-1300 Fax: (210) 277-2702 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT U.S. RENAL CARE, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 8th day of February, 2019, a copy of the foregoing pleading was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served on all counsel of record pursuant to the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. W. Craft Hughes craft@hughesellzey.com Jarrett L. Ellzey jarrett@hughesellzey.com HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 /s/ Lara C. de Leon Lara C. de Leon 37357162.1 026518-000025 Case 1:17-cv-00146 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/19 Page 5 of 5