1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST

INC.,

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 9 JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF v. 10 Re: ECF No. 159

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

11 FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff Synergy Project Management, Inc. has filed an emergency motion for a temporary 15 restraining order, order to show cause, and preliminary injunction. ECF No. 159. Synergy seeks 16 an order requiring Defendants City and County of San Francisco and Mayor London Breed to (1) 17 confirm that they have sought and obtained correspondence from Mayor Breed’s personal 18 computer and personal email account related to the matters in Synergy’s case, (2) take immediate 19 steps to preserve any such correspondence, and (3) certify their preservation of such 20 correspondence. ECF No. 159-2. 21 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 22 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The district court is under a continuing duty to establish its own 23 subject matter jurisdiction. Krug v. Woods, 9 F.3d 1552 (9th Cir. 1993). 24 The basis for federal jurisdiction is not apparent from the face of the motion, given that 25 there currently are no active claims pending before this Court. On November 21, 2019, the Court 26 dismissed with prejudice all of Synergy’s federal claims and remanded Synergy’s state law claims. 27 ECF No. 128 at 15-16. Synergy has appealed the Court’s final judgment, see ECF No. 132, and 1 Dkt. No. 60.' Synergy’s state law claims are pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court. 2 || See ECF Nos. 131, 143-2. 3 Synergy’s only proffered basis for jurisdiction is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d).” 4 || ECF No. 159 at 7. Rule 62(d) states that “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order 5 or final judgment that grants, continues, modifies, refuses, dissolves, or refuses to dissolve or 6 || modify an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for 7 || bond or other terms that secure the opposing party’s rights.” Rule 62(d) does not apply because 8 || the Court’s final judgment did not involve an injunction. 9 Synergy is ordered to file a supplemental brief by no later than April 11, 2021, identifying 10 the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Defendants may, but are not required to, file a responsive 11 || brief by April 15, 2021. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

|| Dated: April 7, 2021 . &

JON S. TIGA

15 nited States District Judge 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 ' The Court notes that Synergy has also filed a motion for a relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 25 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, for an indicative ruling pursuant to Rule 62.1. ECF No. 138. That motion is under submission. 26 || 2 Although Synergy’s papers cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), the language they 07 quote is from Rule 62(d). This may be due to Synergy’s reliance on a case issued prior to the 2018 amendment to Rule 62 which reorganized the subdivisions. See ECF No. 159 at 7 (citing 28 Christian Sci. Reading Room Jointly Maintained v. City & County of San Francisco, 784 F.2d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir.), amended, 792 F.2d 124 (9th Cir. 1986)).