Ryan v. Professional Disc Golf Assoc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATALIE RYAN, No. 2:23-cv-00324-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PROFESSIONAL DISC GOLF ASSOCIATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On May 11, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff Natalie Ryan’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for a 19 temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining Defendants Professional Disc Golf Association 20 (“PDGA”) and Lowa LLC doing business as Disc Golf Pro Tour (“the Tour” or “DGPT”) 21 (collectively, “Defendants”) from enforcing, using, implementing, or otherwise relying on section 22 C.3 of the PDGA “Policy on Eligibility for Gender-Based Division” (the “policy”) for any 23 purpose, including but not limited to preventing Plaintiff from participating in the 2023, FPO 24 division of the OTB Open in Stockton, California. (ECF No. 31.) This Order related exclusively 25 to the relief sought in Plaintiff’s TRO which was limited to May 12–15, 2023. (ECF No. 7-1 at 26 9.) Accordingly, the relief granted in the TRO lapsed at the end of day on May 15, 2023.1 27 1 The date upon which the TRO would lapse was not explicitly noted in the Court’s 28 previous order, however it was implicit in Court’s findings and the fact the relief provided was 1 Defendants appealed and sought an emergency motion to stay this Court’s order pending 2 appeal. (Natalie Ryan v. Professional Disc Golf Association, et al., 9th Cir. Case Nos. 23-15722, 3 23-15725.) The Ninth Circuit granted DGPT’s motion to stay pending appeal but denied PDGA’s 4 motion to stay pending appeal. (Id. at ECF Nos. 7, 4.) Thus, this Court’s order remained in full 5 force and effect as to PDGA. See Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 6 1168 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding defendant subject to injunction after being denied a stay.) Pursuant 7 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65(d)(2)(B)-(C) the Order bound PDGA, its “officers, 8 agents, servants, employees, and attorneys” as well as “other persons who are in active concert or 9 participation” with them. 10 It is well established “that an appeal from an interlocutory order does not divest the trial 11 court of jurisdiction to continue with other phases of the case.” Plotkin v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 12 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). Additionally, a court may 13 “issue further orders with respect to an injunction. . ., notwithstanding appeal, in order to preserve 14 the status quo or ensure compliance with its earlier order. See State of Hawai’i v. Trump, 263 F. 15 Supp. 3d 1049, 1056 (D. Haw.), aff’d, 871 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Nat. Res. Def. 16 Council, Inc. 242 F.3d at 1166); see also A&M Recs., Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1099 17 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The district court properly exercised its power under Rule 62(c) to continue 18 supervision of Napster’s compliance with the injunction.”). The status quo is determined at the 19 time the appeal was filed. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. 242 F.3d at 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (looking 20 to “[t]he status quo as of the filing of [Defendant]’s consolidated appeal”). 21 On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to DGPT and on May 22 30, 2023, the Court dismissed DGPT. (ECF Nos. 42, 43.) Given the recent developments in the 23 case, the parties are HEREBY ORDERED to file a Status Report not later than June 9, 2023, 24 outlining how this case should proceed. In their report, Plaintiff shall also provide information as 25 to whether she was permitted to participate in the OBT Open on May 12–15, 2023. If Plaintiff 26 explicitly tied to relief requested in the TRO. To the extent this was unclear, the Court hereby 27 clarifies. See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Enforma Nat. Prod., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1216 n.11 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Meinhold v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 34 F.3d 1469, 1480 n.14 (9th Cir. 1994). 28 1 | was prevented from participating in the OBT Open or any portion thereof, Plaintiff and PDGA 2 | are FURTHER ORDERED to include in their response a position as to whether PDGA violated 3 | this Court’s May 11, 2023, Order and if so, what recourse should follow. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.” 5 | DATE: May 30, 2023 8 Troy L. Nuhlep ] 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2% | This Order does not modify the Court’s previous order granting the TRO. This Order only provides clarification to the Court’s previous order, see Meinhold, 34 F.3d at 1480 n.14, 27 || requests information regarding case progress, see Plotkin, 688 F.2d at 1293, and seeks to enforce compliance with the Court’s previous order by ensuring the status quo was properly maintained, 28 | see Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. 242 F.3d at 1166-68; A&M Recs., Inc, 284 F.3d at 1099.