Arcell et al v. Google LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARY KATHERINE ARCELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 22-cv-02499-RFL
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON
APPLE’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 274
Plaintiffs move to stay further proceedings on Apple’s motion for sanctions. The motion
is DENIED. The sanctions order (Dkt. No. 272) did not turn on application of the apex doctrine.
Rather, it turned on Plaintiffs’ failure to heed the reasoning of past court orders and intent “to
gain evidence to re-name Apple as a defendant.” (Id. at 10–13.) As a result, any appellate
decisions on the apex doctrine are unlikely to impact the sanctions proceedings. Plaintiffs have
also failed to show hardship or prejudice. The sanctions order has already issued with its
associated findings, and “being required to defend a suit, without more,” does not constitute
hardship. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 283 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 1