Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Chambless Enterprises, LLC v. Redfield

Case docket

Chambless Enterprises, LLC v. Redfield — W.D. La., Monroe Division

Chambless Enterprises, LLC v. Redfield — W.D. La., Monroe Division — 27 documents in the archive, dated September 25, 2020 to September 21, 2021.

Case facts

CourtUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (12 filings); U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (10 filings)
Docket numbersNo. 3:20-cv-01455 — main docket · CourtListener docket 176977
No. 2:20-cv-04852 (no document in the archive is numbered on it) — other docket filed with this case
No. 2:20-cv-02692 (no document in the archive is numbered on it) — other docket filed with this case
Filings27 public filings
Filed2020-09-25 – 2021-09-21
Document typesexhibits (2), declarations (2), order (1)
Original PDFs27 of 27
ProfilesAlex Azar, Xavier Becerra

Case summary

Chambless Enterprises, LLC and the Apartment Association of Louisiana, Inc. sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, its director Robert R. Redfield and other federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, No. 3:20-cv-01455, over the CDC order halting residential evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion made three claims: that the order exceeds the CDC's statutory and regulatory authority under 42 U.S.C. § 264 and 42 C.F.R. § 70.2, that reading the statute that broadly violates the non-delegation doctrine, and that the order violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The court denied the motion on December 22, 2020, stayed the case pending appeal, and the Fifth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal on August 27, 2021 before dismissing the appeal on the appellants' unopposed motion on September 21, 2021.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiffs: Chambless Enterprises, LLC and Apartment Association of Louisiana, Inc. Defendants: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Robert R. Redfield, CDC Director; Nina B. Witkofsky, CDC Acting Chief of Staff; Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services; HHS; William P. Barr, Attorney General. On appeal the defendants are captioned as Rochelle Walensky, Sherri Berger, HHS, Merrick Garland, Xavier Becerra and the CDC
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, No. 3:20-cv-01455 (Judge Terry A. Doughty), docketed as -TAD-KLH and later -TAD-KDM; Fifth Circuit No. 21-30037
ProgramNot named in the filings on this page
ClaimsThat the CDC's eviction order exceeds the authority granted by 42 U.S.C. § 264 and 42 C.F.R. § 70.2; that reading the statute to authorize an eviction moratorium violates the non-delegation doctrine; and that the order violates the Administrative Procedure Act
Disposition or statusPreliminary injunction denied December 22, 2020; proceedings stayed April 19, 2021 pending Fifth Circuit review, affirmed on appeal to the district judge June 2, 2021; Fifth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal August 27, 2021 and dismissed the appeal on the appellants' unopposed motion September 21, 2021
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What did the court decide?

That the plaintiffs had not carried their burden of persuasion on any of the four preliminary-injunction requirements, and the motion was denied. On the merits question the ruling found that the order has statutory and regulatory authority and that the CDC may take measures it deems reasonably necessary to prevent the spread of disease once it determines that state or local measures are insufficient.

What happened on appeal?

The magistrate judge stayed the district-court proceedings on April 19, 2021 pending the Fifth Circuit's review of the preliminary-injunction denial, and the district judge affirmed that order on June 2, 2021. On August 27, 2021 the Fifth Circuit granted the appellants' motion for an injunction pending appeal, citing Alabama Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS; on September 21, 2021 it granted their unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal under Rule 42.

What other courts' orders are on this page?

Two, filed as exhibits: an order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denying a temporary restraining order in KBW Investment Properties, LLC v. Azar, No. 2:20-cv-4852, and an order of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in Tiger Lily LLC v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, No. 2:20-cv-2692.

Docket

27 documents in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.

No. 3:20-cv-01455 — main docket

  1. —Entry 5: main document not in the archive
  2. Plaintiffs' Brief — Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)Entry 5, attachment 1
  3. Declaration of Joshua Chambless — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 5, attachment 2
  4. —Entries 6–19 are not in the archive
  5. Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 20
  6. —Entries 21–30 are not in the archive
  7. Amicus Brief — Legal Services — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 31
  8. —Entry 32: main document not in the archive
  9. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 32, attachment 1
  10. Declaration of Erin E. Babich Runge — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 32, attachment 2
  11. —Entries 33–34 are not in the archive
  12. Ruling — Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)Entry 35
  13. —Entries 36–42 are not in the archive
  14. Defendants' Answer to Complaint — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 43
  15. Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 44
  16. Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)Entry 44, attachment 1
  17. —Entries 45–46 are not in the archive
  18. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Stay — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 47
  19. —Entry 48 is not in the archive
  20. Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Stay — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)Entry 49
  21. Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Skyworks/Terkel) — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La., 2021-03-11)Entry 50
  22. —Entry 51 is not in the archive
  23. Magistrate Judge Memorandum Order Granting Stay — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 52
  24. Magistrate's Memorandum Order Granting Stay — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 52
  25. Plaintiffs' Appeal from Order of Magistrate Judge — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)Entry 53
  26. Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 53, attachment 2
  27. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Appeal from Magistrate's Stay Order — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)Entry 53, attachment 3
  28. —Entry 54 is not in the archive
  29. Fifth Circuit Order Granting Amicus Motions — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 55
  30. —Entry 56 is not in the archive
  31. Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Alabama Realtors) — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La., 2021-05-06)Entry 57
  32. Defendants' Opposition to Appeal from Magistrate's Stay Order — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)Entry 58
  33. Plaintiffs' Reply — Appeal from Magistrate's Stay Order — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)Entry 59
  34. Memorandum Order Affirming Magistrate's Stay — Chambless v. RedfieldEntry 60
  35. Fifth Circuit Order — Injunction Pending Appeal Granted — Chambless v. Walensky (W.D. La.)Entry 61
  36. Fifth Circuit Order Dismissing Appeal — Chambless v. WalenskyEntry 62

Documents without an entry number

  1. Exhibit: Order Denying TRO (KBW Investment Properties v. Azar) — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)
  2. Exhibit A — Tiger Lily Order (W.D. Tenn.) — Chambless v. Redfield

Other cases in the archive from UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top