govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-07070-8

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 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
CITY OF FRESNO, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
 
SCOTT TURNER, et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 
 
 
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), Defendants’ motion to stay this action pending 
resolution of a related Ninth Circuit appeal is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and 
the hearing set for June 18, 2026 is vacated. For the following reasons, the motion to stay is 
denied. 
The above captioned matter, City of Fresno, et al., v. Scott Turner, et al., No. 3:25-cv-
07070-RS (N.D. Cal.) (“City of Fresno”) has much in common with Martin Luther King, Jr. 
County, et al. v. Turner, et al., No. 2:25-cv-00814-BJR (W.D. Wash.) (“King County”). Both sets 
of plaintiffs are groups of local governmental entities that face new conditions on their federal 
grant funding, reflecting the Grant Condition Executive Orders.1 They have sued some of the 
government agencies (and their agency heads) imposing the grant conditions and challenge the 
conditions on substantially similar grounds. However, despite some overlap in defendants, there is 
no overlap in plaintiffs. 
 
1 Terms in this Order share the same meaning as set out in this Court’s prior orders. 

 

2 
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 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
Three preliminary injunctions have issued in King County, and all three are on appeal at 
the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument for the first King County appeal, No. 25-3664, regarding the first 
preliminary injunction issued against the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(“HUD”) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”), was held on February 9, 2026. The 
two later-filed King County appeals are stayed pending resolution of the first appeal. 
In City of Fresno, two preliminary injunctions have issued, enjoining all Defendants except 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) from enforcing the grant conditions. The 
enjoined Defendants are HUD, DOT, the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”), Federal 
Highway Administration (“FHWA”), Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), Federal Railway 
Administration (“FRA”), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and their agency heads named in their 
official capacities. City of Fresno Defendants appealed the first preliminary injunction order and 
then sought a stay of the appellate proceedings pending resolution of the first King County appeal. 
The Ninth Circuit motion to stay was unopposed and granted. 
City of Fresno Defendants now move to stay also the proceedings in this Court pending 
resolution of the first King County appeal. Federal courts have broad discretion to grant or deny 
stays of proceedings. In considering whether a stay is appropriate, a court may consider (1) the 
possible damage to the nonmoving party, here Plaintiffs, if a stay is granted, (2) the hardship or 
inequity to the moving party, here Defendants, if a stay is denied, and (3) “the orderly course of 
justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 
which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 
1962) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)). However, “[a] district court’s 
concern for the last factor, which courts refer to as ‘judicial efficiency,’ ‘standing alone is not 
necessarily a sufficient ground to stay proceedings.’ ” In re PG&E Corp. Securities Litig., 100 
F.4th 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 
498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007)). 
Little actual consequence is at stake here. The City of Fresno preliminary injunctions 

 

3 
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 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
remain in place with or without a stay, and Defendants raise no hardship or inequity caused by 
denial. See Dkt. 93, Mot. for Stay, at 4–5 (Defendants’ analysis focuses on judicial efficiency 
primarily and lack of harm to Plaintiffs caused by a stay secondarily, with no discussion of the 
harm Defendants would face without a stay.); Dkt. 104, Reply, at 5–6. (Defendants’ balance of 
hardships analysis focuses entirely on refuting Plaintiffs’ theories of harm and does not raise 
arguments as to the harm Defendants would face.). Meanwhile, Plaintiffs’ theories of harm in the 
case of a stay are mostly speculative, i.e., an inability to seek enforcement of the existing 
preliminary injunctions in the face of possible violations and delay in production, certification, and 
possible adjudication, if necessary, of the administrative record. Yet, Plaintiffs do have a ripe 
interest in resolving budgetary uncertainty as discussed in this Court’s prior orders, which the first 
King County appeal will not address fully, especially given it includes only two of the eight 
currently enjoined City of Fresno Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiffs effectively argue that 
Defendants’ reasons for a stay here have no limiting principle such that serial stays could be 
sought on the same grounds while the Ninth Circuit hears and considers appeals of the other two King 
County preliminary injunctions, further delaying resolution of the matter. 
For the forgoing reasons, the motion to stay is denied. However, Defendants are not precluded 
from making a renewed request for a stay should additional grounds arise. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 3, 2026 
______________________________________ 
RICHARD SEEBORG 
Chief United States District Judge 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight