Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 1 of 33
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`In Propria Persona
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95816
`
`(408) 883-4428
`legal@ashleygjovik.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Court
`
`Northern District of California
`
` U.S. D istric t C our t Case No. 3 :23 -CV- 0459 7
`
` The Honora ble Ed ward. M. Chen
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik ,
`
` U.S. Cour t of App eals Case No. 24 -605 8
`
`an individual,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.,
`
`a corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Stay Dist. Court
`Proceedings Pending Appeal
`
`Fed. R. App . P. 8(a)(1); 28 U.S .C. § 1292(a)
`
`Plaintiff’s Memorandum of
`Points & Authorities
`
`Filed: Oct. 22 2024
`
`
`Motion Hearing :
`Dept: C our troom 5, 17th F loor or Zoom
`See Admi n . Motion re: c onnection i ssues
`Judge : The Hon orable Edward M. Chen
`Date : Dec . 19 2024 (first ava ilability)
`Time : 1:30 P.M. PT
`
`U P C O M IN G DE A D L I N ES :
`
`Oct. 29 2024 – Fif th Amended Compla int
`See Motion to Exte nd / Stay Deadline
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Table of Authorities ....................................................... iii
`
`II.
`
`Summar y ............................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`Statement of Facts & Procedural Histor y ......................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Nature and Status of the Case ......................................................... 7
`
`III.
`
`Issues to be Decided .............................................................. 9
`
`IV. Arguments in Support of a Motion to Stay. ................................. 9
`
`C.
`
`This appeal raises serious questions. ............................................... 9
`
`D.
`
`Likelihood of Success on the Merits ............................................... 13
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiff will be irreparably injured if a stay is denied & granting a stay
`
`also primarily prejudices the Plaintiff. .................................................... 20
`
`F. The Public Interest ......................................................................... 22
`
`G.
`
`Judicial Economy ......................................................................... 24
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ......................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— ii —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 3 of 33
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`I. Table of Authorities
`
`Supreme Court Cases
`
`Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2319 (2018) .................................................. 14
`
`Alexander v. Gardner -Denver Co. , 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974) ................................ 23
`
`Carson v. American Brands, Inc . , 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981) ................................... 14
`
`Cobbledick v. United States , 309 U.S. 323, 325 (1940) ..................................... 21
`
`Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc . , 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994 ................... 17
`
`Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord , 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981) ........................ 17
`
`Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp. , 574 U.S. 405, 135 S. Ct. 897 (2015) ............... 9
`
`Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, (1982) .................... 1
`
`Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1122 (2018) ........................................................ 9
`
`Hilton v. Braunskill , 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) ................................................ 20
`
`Niken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 421 (2009) ....................................................... 2
`
`Richardson Merrell, Inc . v. Koller , 472 U.S. 424, 430 -431 (1985) ................... 17, 18
`
`Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 351–52 (2006) ................................................. 24
`
`Trial and Circuit Court Cases
`
`Al-Torki v. Kae mpen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 –85 (9th Cir. 1996) .............................. 13
`
`Arizona v. United States Dist. Court (In re Cement Antitrust Litig .), 688 F.2d
`
`1297, 1307 (9th Cir. 1982) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Armstrong v. Wilson , 124 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................... 1
`
`Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Ent., Inc ., No. 04-CV-1035 -BLM, 2006 WL
`
`8439887, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2006) .................................................... 17
`
`Auste r Oil Gas, Inc . v. Stream , 764 F.2d 381, 386 (5th Cir. 1985) ...................... 16
`
`Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting , LLC , 889 F.3d 517, 537 (9th Cir. 2018 ................ 20
`
`Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................ 15
`
`Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654 –55 (9th Cir.1977) ..... 19
`
`Beer y v. Hitachi Home Electronics America , Inc ., 157 FRD 477, 480; U.S. (C.D.
`
`C.A. 1993) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— ii i —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`Bonanno v. Thomas, 309 F.2d 320, 322 (9th Cir. 1962) ..................................... 16
`
`Buckingham v. Gannon (In re Touch America Holdings, Inc . ERISA Litig .) , 563 F.3d
`
`903, 906 (9th Cir. 2009) ( per curiam) ......................................................... 15
`
`Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 134 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1998) ............ 19
`
`Che ney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 – 81 (2004). ............... 19
`
`Cit y of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper , 254 F.3d 882, 885 -86 (9th Cir.
`
`2001) ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`Cit y of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper , 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) 1
`
`Cook, Pe rkiss Liehe v. N.C. Collection Ser v , 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) 16, 17
`
`Cordoza v. Pac . States Steel Corp. ,320 F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir.2003) .................. 19
`
`Cunningham v. Gates , 229 F.3d 127 1, 1284 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................. 20
`
`Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1066 –67 (9th Cir.
`
`2000) ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Alia Corp ., 842 F.Supp.2d 1243, 1250 (E.D. C.A. 2012) .................. 16
`
`Erlich v. Glasner, 352 F.2d 119, 122 (9th Cir. 1965) ......................................... 17
`
`Fantas y, Inc . v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993) ............................. 17
`
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc , Ninth Circuit Case No. 24 -6058 ........................................ 1
`
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc . , 23-cv-04597-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2024) .................... 8
`
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc . , 23-cv-04597-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2024) ...................... 8
`
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc . , 23-cv-04597-EMC (N.D. Cal. May. 20, 2024) ................ 4, 8
`
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc . , 23-cv-04597-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2024) ................ 3, 5, 8
`
`Guifu Li v . A Perfect Franchise , Inc ., No. 5:10 -CV-01189 -LHK, 2011 WL 2293221,
`
`at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2011) ................................................................... 10
`
`Hall v. City of Santa Barbara , 833 F.2d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 1986) .................... 16
`
`Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................... 19
`
`Koshak v. Malek, 200 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1542 (2011). ..................................... 17
`
`Leiva-Pe rez v. Holder , 640 F.3d 962, 97 1 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................... 2, 3
`
`Martinez-Gonzalez v. Elkhorn Packing Co. , Case No. 18 -cv-05226-EMC, 3 (N.D.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— iv —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`Cal. Feb. 13, 2020) ................................................................................... 10
`
`Medhekar v. United States Dist. Court, 99 F.3d 325, 327 (9th Cir. 1996) ( per
`
`curiam) .................................................................................................... 19
`
`Medhekar v. United States District Court , 99 F.3d 325, 327 (9th Cir.1996) ......... 18
`
`Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) .......................... 19
`
`Mohamed v. Technologies, 115 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............... 2
`
`Mohamed v. Technologies , 115 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1028 -29 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........ 22
`
`Morse v. Ser vicemaste r Glob . Holdings, Inc., No. C 08 -03894, 2013 WL 123610, at
`
`*3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) ....................................................................... 10
`
`Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North America , 523 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir.
`
`2008) ....................................................................................................... 15
`
`Nehmer v. U.S. Dep’ t of Agric ., 494 F.3d 846, 856 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007) .............. 18
`
`Perr y v. Schwarze negger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir.2009) ............................. 18
`
`Pilgram v. Lafave, No. 12-CV-5304 GAF-EX, 2013 WL 12124126, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
`
`Feb. 7, 2013) ............................................................................................. 17
`
`Plata v. Brown, 754 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................ 20
`
`Plourde v. Massachusetts Cities Realty Co., 47 F. Supp. 668, 670 (D.Mass. 1942) 23
`
`Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc . , 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994) ........... 16
`
`Scott v. Eversole Mortuar y , 522 F.2d 1110, 1112 (9th Cir. 1975) .......................... 13
`
`Sidebotham v. Robison , 216 F.2d 816, 826 (9th Cir. 1954) .................................. 16
`
`Solis v. Jasmine Hall Care Homes, Inc ., 610 F.3d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 2010) ......... 18
`
`Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. Westinghouse Elec . Corp. (In re Subpoena Ser ved on Cal.
`
`Pub. Util. Comm’n), 813 F.2d 1473, 1479 –80 (9th Cir. 1987) ......................... 18
`
`Special Invs. Inc . v. Aero Air Inc . ,360 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2004) ................... 19
`
`Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................... 24
`
`Townley v. Miller , 693 F.3d 1041, 1042 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................... 24
`
`Tri–State Gene ration & Transmission Ass’n , Inc . v. Shoshone River Power, Inc., 874
`
`F.2d 1346, 1351 (10th Cir. 1989) ................................................................. 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— v —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Visioneering Constr. Dev. Co. v. United States Fidelity Guar., 661 F.2d 119, 124 n. 6
`
`(9th Cir. 1981) ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Walmer v. United States DOD 52 F.3d 851, 854 (10th Cir. 1995) ...................... 10
`
`Wirtz v. C P Shoe Corp., 336 F.2d 21, 30 (5th Cir. 1964) ................................. 23
`
`Z.A. ex rel. K.A. v. St. Hele na Unified Sch . Dist., No. 09-CV-03557-JSW, 2010 WL
`
`370333, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2010) ....................................................... 17
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S. Code § 78u -6 ..................................................................................... 5
`
`18 U.S. Code § 1962(a) .................................................................................. 5
`
`18 U.S. Code § 1962(c) .................................................................................. 4
`
`18 U.S. Code § 1962(d) .............................................................................. 4, 5
`
`18 U.S. Code § 377 1 .................................................................................... 18
`
`28 U.S. Code § 1292 (a) ............................................................................. 1, 14
`
`28 U.S. Code § 1292(b) ............................................................................... 18
`
`28 U.S. Code § 1407 ...................................................................................... 9
`
`28 U.S. Code § 1651 ...................................................................................... 1
`
`42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. ................................................................................. 5
`
`Cal. Business Code § 17200, et seq . ............................................................ 4, 11
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 ..................................................................................... 4
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 52.7 .................................................................................... 4
`
`Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 ...................................................................... 3, 4, 11
`
`Cal. Labor Code § 232.5 ............................................................................ 3, 4
`
`Cal. Labor Code § 6310 ............................................................................. 3, 4
`
`Cal. Labor Code § 6399.7 ............................................................................. 10
`
`Cal. Labor Code § 96(k) ................................................................................ 3
`
`Cal. Labor Code § 98.6 .............................................................................. 3, 4
`
`Rules & Regulations
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................................... 3, 9, 15, 16
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— v i —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f ) ................................................................................... i, 3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12( g) ............................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) ..................................................................................... 13
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ........................................................................................... 16
`
`Agency Adjudications
`
`Apple Inc, U.S. NLRB Case: 32 -CA-282142; 32 -CA-283161 .............................. 6
`
`Apple Inc, U.S. NLRB Case: 32 -CA-284428 .................................................... 6
`
`Apple Inc, U.S. NLRB Case: 32 -CA-284441 .................................................... 6
`
`Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc , OALJ 2024-CER-00001, Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc , ARB
`
`2024-0060 ................................................................................................. 6
`
`Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc , RCI-CM-842830, Cal. Dept. of Labor DIR. .............. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on DECEMBER 19 2024 at 1:30PM, in Judge
`
`Chen’s virtual courtroom, before the Honorable Judge Edward Chen, I will, and
`
`hereby do, move for an order granting a Stay of Proceedings pending appeal to
`
`the Ninth Circuit . Note: Dec. 19 2024 is the first date that appears to be
`
`available. Plaintiff does not require oral arguments and would be grateful if the
`
`matter could be decided well before Dec. 19 2024 due to several deadlines and
`
`conferences occurring prior to that date.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— v ii —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Motion to Stay: Points & Authorities
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Ashley Gjovik,
`
`respectfully
`
`submits
`
`the
`
`following
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff ’s Motion to Stay
`
`District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal (see, Gjovik v. Apple Inc, Ninth Circuit
`
`Case No. 24-6058). Plaintiff ’s appeal is an appeal by right, filed under the
`
`authority of 28 U.S. Code § 1292 (a) and 28 U.S. Code § 1651 . Armstrong v. Wilson ,
`
`124 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 1997) .
`
`2.
`
`The Ninth Circuit approved the request for an appeal and issued a
`
`briefing schedule on Oct. 4 20 24. (Dkt. 114). Upon the acceptance of the appeal
`
`and issuing of scheduling order, the District Court appears to have transferred
`
`jurisdiction over the order and the subject matter under appeal. Fed. R. App. P.
`
`5(d)(2). City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper , 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir.
`
`2001). As a general rule, while an appeal from an interlocutor y order is pending,
`
`the district court retains jurisdiction to continue with other stages of the case. See
`
`Plotkin v. Pac . Tel. & Tel. Co. , 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982) .
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff does not know how these types of requests are supposed to
`
`be filed ( including to which court) with a pending appeal – so I have also filed a
`
`copy to the Ninth Circuit docket as well. 1
`
`4.
`
`I attempted to meet/confer with the Defendant on this matter. I
`
`contacted the Defendant on Oct. 17 2024, and they did not respond until Oct. 21
`
`2024. Defendant initially said they do not agree to “any stay of proceedings in the
`
`
`1 T h e S up r e me Co u r t ha s c o nc lu de d t h at j ur is d ic t io n i s t ra ns fer re d f ro m a d ist r ic t c o u r t to a
`c o u r t o f a p pea l s up o n t h e f il i ng o f a no t ic e o f a p pe a l . See G rigg s v . P r ov i d e n t Co n su m e r
`D is c ou n t Co ., 4 5 9 U. S. 5 6 , 5 8 , 1 0 3 S . Ct . 4 0 0 , 74 L . E d. 2 d 2 2 5 (1 98 2 ) ( pe r c ur ia m) (" T he fi li n g
`o f a n o t ic e o f a p pea l i s a n eve nt o f jur i sd ic t i o na l si g ni fi c a nc e — it c o n fer s j ur is dic t io n o n t h e
`c o u r t o f a p pea l s a n d d i vest s t h e d ist r ic t c o u r t o f it s c o nt r o l o ve r t ho s e a s pec t s o f t he c a s e
`i nvo lve d i n t h e ap p ea l .") ; Vi s i on e e ri n g C on st r. De v . Co . v . U n it e d St at e s F i de l it y G u ar., 66 1 F. 2 d
`1 1 9 , 1 24 n . 6 ( 9t h Cir. 1 9 8 1 ) (" On c e a no t ic e o f a pp ea l i s fi l ed ju r i sd ic t io n i s ves ted in t he
`Co u r t o f Ap p ea l s , a n d t he t r ia l c o ur t t he r ea fter ha s no po we r to m o d if y i t s j ud g m e nt i n t h e
`c a s e o r p ro c e ed fu r t he r exc ept by l eave o f t he C o u r t o f Ap p ea l s.") . T hu s , t h e f il i ng o f a no t ic e
`o f i nte r l o c u to r y ap p ea l di vest s t h e d ist r ic t c o u r t o f ju r i s dic t io n o ver t h e p a r t ic ula r i ss u es
`i nvo lve d i n t hat ap pe a l . C it y of L os A n g e l e s v . Sa n t a Mon i c a B a y k ee p e r , 2 5 4 F. 3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 5 - 8 6
`(9t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) .
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay P e n d in g A p p e a l | C as e No . 3 :2 3 - CV- 0 4 5 9 7 - EM C
`
`— 1 —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NDCA case… including the scheduled settlement conference” and they will
`
`oppose "a request to stay the … proceedings as well as any request to extend the
`
`deadline to file a Fifth Amended Complaint.” They also notified me for the ver y
`
`first time that they plan on filing a Motion to Dismiss my pending appeal.
`
`5.
`
`Upon further questioning, the defendant responded again today on
`
`Oct. 22 2024 and revised their position to say they “do not agree to stay the
`
`district court proceedings while the Ninth Circuit decides if it has jurisdiction”
`
`but “as for the settlement con ference, [Apple sees] no need to continue the
`
`scheduling conference on November 12, as it is simply a precursor to the
`
`settlement conference that is not yet scheduled. Fur ther, [Apple is] not in a
`
`position to evaluate how Apple will respond to the 5AC beca use [Plaintiff has] not
`
`yet filed it and [Apple has] not had an opportunity to review.” It is unclear if
`
`Defendant knows what they want right now. Please see Exhibit C attached to the
`
`Declaration in Support of the Motion to Extend for a copy of the email exchange.
`
`II. Summary
`
`6.
`
`A U.S. District Court has discretion to stay a case pending appeal.
`
`Niken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 421 (2009) . Plaintiff, Ashley Gjovik, respectfully
`
`requests that this Court issue a stay pending appeal of its Decision and Order,
`
`entered on Oct. 1 2024. 2 (Dkt. 112)
`
`7.
`
`This request is made in light of the substantial legal questions raised
`
`in the appeal, the likelihood of success on the merits, the majority of prejudice
`
`only impacting the Plaintiff herself, and the potential for irreparable harm if the
`
`pleading progress es further before the appellate court has had the oppor tunity to
`
`review the matter. Mohamed v. Technologies, 115 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1028 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2015) citing Nke n, 556 U.S. at 433 –34, 129 S.Ct. 1749 ; Leiva -Perez v. Holder , 640
`
`F.3d 962, 97 1 (9th Cir. 2011) .
`
`
`2 G jov i k v . A p p l e I n c . , 2 3 - cv- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C ( N. D. Ca l. Oc t . 1 , 2 0 24 ).
`
`— 2 —
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay P e n d in g A p p e a l | C as e No . 3 :2 3 - CV- 0 4 5 9 7 - EM C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`8.
`
`A stay is necessar y to preser ve the status quo , encourage judicial
`
`economy, and ensure that the appeal can be adjudicated without the risk of
`
`irreversible consequences. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks this Court's consideration
`
`and approval to stay this case until the conclusion of the appellate process.
`
`Callahan v. PeopleConnect, Inc . , 20 -cv-09203-EMC, 3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021 ).
`
`A. Statement of Facts & Procedural Histor y
`
`9.
`
`This lawsuit was filed on Sept. 7 2023 and as of today, Oct. 22 2024,
`
`no Answer has been filed from the Defendant, over thirteen months later. Plaintiff
`
`has revised her complaint once per request of the Defendant, twice per request of
`
`the court, and once on her own is her right. Plaintiff has been asked to amend her
`
`complaint again and the Defendant allowed to file another responsive motion. 3
`
`10. This Cour t has now considered and issued substantive decisions on
`
`two Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss and two Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f )
`
`Motions to Strike. After the Oct. 1 2024 decision, and prior to amending the
`
`complaint again as Ordered by the cour t , the following claims were approved to
`
`proceed: 4
`
`- Tamney termination in violation of public policy (full claim)
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 ( partial)
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 6310 ( par tial)
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 98.6 ( partial)
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 96(k) (full)
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 232.5 ( partial)
`
`In addition, on Oct. 1 2024, leave to amend was granted for: 5
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 ( partial)
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 98.6 ( partial, fines)
`
`
`
`3 Id .
`4 G jov i k v . A p p l e I n c . , 2 3 - cv- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C ( N. D. Ca l. Oc t . 1 , 2 0 24 ) .
`5 G jov i k v . A p p l e I n c . , 2 3 - cv- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C ( N. D. Ca l. Oc t . 1 , 2 0 24 ) .
`
`— 3 —
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay P e n d in g A p p e a l | C as e No . 3 :2 3 - CV- 0 4 5 9 7 - EM C
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 232.5 ( partial, § 232)
`
`- Private Nuisance (full)
`
`-
`
`-
`
`IIED – Outrage ( partial)
`
`IIED – Cancer (full)
`
`The following claims were previously approved to move for ward in the May 20
`
`2024 Decision, but were then dismissed with prejudice , despite 12( g) and 12(h)
`
`restrictions, and based on discretionar y factors , in the Oct. 1 2024 Decision:
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 ( partial)
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 6310 ( par tial, § 6399.7 )
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 232.5 ( partial, § 1101, 1102).
`
`- Cal. Business Code § 17200, et seq . with injunctive relief (full)
`
`- Ultrahazardous Activities (full)
`
`- Breach of Implied Cov. of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (full)
`
`The following claim was allowed to proceed in the Oct. 1 2024 Decision following
`
`leave to amend in the May 20 2024 Decision:
`
`- Cal. Labor Code § 96 k via § 98.6 (full)
`
`The following claim was given leave to amend in the May 20 2024 decision, but
`
`then dismissed with prejudice in the Oct. 1 2024 Decision:
`
`-
`
`IIED – Outrage ( partial, based on defamation)
`
`Further, the May 20 2024 Decision allowed leave to amend for the following claims,
`
`and they were not amended by the Plaintiff, due to the comments from the cour t
`
`discouraging her from doing so, even though she could have: 6
`
`- RICO, 18 U.S. Code § 1962(c) (full)
`
`- RICO, 18 U.S. Code § 1962(d) ( par tial)
`
`- The Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (full)
`
`- The Ralph Act , Cal. Civ. Code § 52.7 (full)
`
`- Breach of Implied Contract (full)
`
`
`6 G jov i k v . A p p l e I n c . , 2 3 - cv- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C ( N. D. Ca l. M ay. 2 0 , 2 0 24 ) .
`
`— 4 —
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay P e n d in g A p p e a l | C as e No . 3 :2 3 - CV- 0 4 5 9 7 - EM C
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- Nuisance Per Se (full)
`
`- Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (full)
`
`Additionally, in the May 20 2024 decision, the following claims were dismissed
`
`with prejudice and without leave to amend: 7
`
`- RICO, 18 U.S. Code § 1962(a) (full)
`
`- RICO, 18 U.S. Code § 1962(d) ( par tial, 1962(a) )
`
`- SOX whistleblower retaliation , 18 U.S. Code §1514A (full)
`
`- Dodd-Frank whistleblower retaliation , 15 U.S. Code § 78u-6 (full)
`
`- Ultrahazardous Activities( partial, RCR A
`
`re : pyrophoric gases –
`
`explosi ons and fire; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.)
`
`- Private Nuisance ( partial, RCR A re : pyrophoric gases – explosions and
`
`fire; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq .)
`
`The following claim was dismissed in the May 20 2024 decision as being
`
`duplicative of the Ultrahazardous Activities claim, but subsequently the
`
`Ultrahazardous Activities claim was dismissed due to discretionar y reasons. 8 It’s
`
`unclear if this claim can still be pled:
`
`- Absolute Nuisance (full)
`
`Finally, while Defendant’s Motions to Strike were denied, the court did repeatedly
`
`agree to “dismiss” material and critical facts and allegations from the Complaint,
`
`leaving an unknown impact to discover y and trial . 9
`
`11. This court has also ordered the Plaintiff to follow page limits set with
`
`the court’s discretion and resulting in substantive impact and prejudice to
`
`Plaintiff ’s litigation, has declined to consider exhibits and judicially noticeable
`
`documents, declined to review or allow supplementar y filings to cure deficiencies,
`
`and the majority of the dismissals with prejudice have been on a discretionar y
`
`
`7 G jov i k v . A p p l e I n c . , 2 3 - cv- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C ( N. D. Ca l. M ay. 2 0 , 2 0 24 ) .
`8 G jov i k v . A p p l e I n c . , 2 3 - cv- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C ( N. D. Ca l. M ay. 2 0 , 2 0 24 ) .
`9 G jov i k v . A p p l e I n c . , 2 3 - cv- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C ( N. D. Ca l. M ay. 2 0 , 2 0 24 ) ; G j ov i k v . A p p l e I n c . , 2 3 -
`cv- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C ( N. D. Ca l. Oc t . 1 , 2 0 24 ) .
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay P e n d in g A p p e a l | C as e No . 3 :2 3 - CV- 0 4 5 9 7 - EM C
`
`— 5 —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`basis separate from the merits of the claims ( i.e., did not include within the page
`
`limit, did not include in a specific section of the document , due to the court’s
`
`internet connection issues during the hearing , and so on). (see Administrative
`
`Motion re: connection issues).
`
`12. Defendant has already had multiple years to prepare its defense on all
`
`of these claims. The litigation between Plaintiff and Defendant has been under way
`
`for much longer than this instant litigation . The first notice of potential litigation
`
`was provided to Apple Inc back in or around June 2021, three months before Apple
`
`Inc terminated the Plaintiff ’s employment. The first version of a complaint was
`
`provided to Apple on Aug. 23 202 1. Multiple charges were filed with government
`
`agencies prior to and after the termination of her employment – with multiple
`
`agency compliance actions and adjudications under way, including:
`
`- Apple Inc, U.S. NLRB Case: 32-CA-284428 | NLRB filed a complaint on
`Sept. 27 2024 and ALJ hearing scheduled for Jan. 22 2025 | Plaintiff is
`representing all U.S. Apple employees
`
`- Apple Inc, U.S. NLRB Case: 32-CA-284441 | Decision of Merit issued in
`Jan. 2023 & NLRB Complaint to be filed | Plaintiff is representing all U.S.
`Apple employees
`
`- Apple Inc, U.S. NLRB Case: 32-CA-282142; 32 -CA-283161 | Decision of
`Merit issued Oct. 15 2024 and NLRB Complaint to be filed imminently |
`Adjudication is specific to unfair labor practices directed at Plaintiff
`
`- U.S. Dept. of Labor environmental whistleblower c ase: Ashley Gjovik v
`Apple Inc, OALJ 2024-CER -00001, Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc , ARB 2024-
`0060 | Adjudication is specific to unlawful retaliation directed at Plaintiff
`
`- U.S. EPA CERCLA re: TRW Microwave | Impacting: the SF Bay Area
`community
`
`- U.S. EPA RCR A re: 3250 Scott | Impacting: the SF Bay Area community
`
`- Cal. EPA BA AQMD re: 3250 Scott | Impacting: the SF Bay Area
`community
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s M ot ion t o S tay P e n d in g A p p e a l | C as e No . 3 :2 3 - CV- 0 4 5 9 7 - EM C
`
`— 6 —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 117 Filed 10/23/24 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`13.
`
`In addition, t he following adjudications were “kicked-out” to this
`
`civil lawsuit:
`
`- Cal. Dept. of Labor Case: Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc , RCI-CM-842830,
`Cal. Dept. of Labor DIR.
`
`- U.S. EEOC and Cal. DFEH: Right to Sue letters issued in 2021.
`
`
`
`Further, it appears that Defendant likely knew it almost manslaughtered the
`
`Plaintiff back in early or mid -2021, but well before her employment was
`
`terminated, and knowing it was part of their cover -up. In this litigation, t he
`
`Defendant has been repeatedly reward ed for claiming without basis that the
`
`Plaintiff has failed to state claims for extremely serious matters the Plaintiff and
`
`Defendant have been in conflict over for years.
`
`B. Nature and Status of the Case
`
`14. This lawsuit could have been filed as at least four different lawsuits
`
`and in different courts (employment claims, environmental claims, racketeering &
`
`unfair business practices/antitrust, and non -employment
`
`intimidation and
`
`harassment claims). If the Plaintiff took that approach, she would likely later file
`
`for Joinder of claims i