Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)

Record facts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM · Doc. 44-1 · 2021-02-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
MONROE DIVISION 
 
 
CHAMBLESS ENTERPRISES LLC, et al., 
 
      Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
 
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
PREVENTION, et al., 
 
      Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 Case No. 3:20-cv-1455 
 
Judge Terry A. Doughty 
 
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes 
 
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY  
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL 
 
 
Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay further proceedings in this case pending 
Plaintiffs’ appeal of the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction.  See Chambless Enters. LLC 
v. Wolensky, No. 21-30037 (5th Cir.).  Conducting further proceedings in this Court while overlapping 
issues are under consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit would result in largely 
duplicative parallel proceedings and create the risk of inconsistent decisions.  Conversely, a stay of 
proceedings would promote efficiency, conserve judicial and party resources, and permit the parties 
and the Court to receive the benefit of the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in any further proceedings.  
Accordingly, this Court should exercise its discretion to temporarily stay district court proceedings 
during the pendency of the Fifth Circuit appeal. 
RELEVANT BACKGROUND 
 
On September 4, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an 
Order temporarily halting certain residential evictions to prevent the further spread of COVID-19.  
See Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions To Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, 85 Fed. 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 44-1   Filed 02/09/21   Page 1 of 6 PageID #:  595

2 
 
Reg. 55292 (Sept. 4, 2020).1  On November 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint challenging that 
Order on various statutory and constitutional grounds.  See ECF No. 1.  They filed a motion for a 
preliminary injunction on the same day.  See ECF No. 5.   
 
On December 22, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion in a lengthy 
and thorough opinion in which it found for Defendants on all four of the preliminary injunction 
factors, see ECF Nos. 35, 36.  The Court’s ruling included an extended discussion of why Plaintiffs 
were unlikely to succeed on the merits.  See ECF No. 35 at 5–24.  On January 22, 2021, Plaintiffs 
noticed an appeal of the denial of their preliminary injunction motion to the Fifth Circuit.  See ECF 
No. 42; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 
ARGUMENT 
 
A “[d]istrict Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 
control its own docket.”  Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).   A court properly exercises this 
power in the interest of, among other things, “economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and 
for litigants.”  Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also, e.g., Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. 
Microsoft Corp., 428 F. Supp. 2d 537, 541 (S.D. Miss. 2006) (“Granting a stay is within the court’s 
discretion and a stay is appropriate when it serves the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.”).  
Other district courts within this circuit routinely exercise their discretion to stay district court 
proceedings to promote judicial economy and efficiency when a case pending before the court of 
                                                 
1 The CDC Order was originally set to expire on December 31, 2020.  See 85 Fed. Reg. at 55297.  On 
December 27, 2020, the President signed into law an Act of Congress extending the Order until 
January 31, 2021.  See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. V, 
§ 502, 134 Stat. 1182, 2079 (2020).  On January 29, 2021, the CDC Director issued a new Order 
extending and superseding the September 4, 2020 Order.  See Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions 
to 
Prevent 
the 
Further 
Spread 
of 
COVID-19 
(Jan. 
29, 
2021), 
available 
at 
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/pdf/CDC-Eviction-Moratorium-
01292021.pdf.  Pursuant to the January Order, the CDC’s temporary eviction moratorium is now set 
to expire on March 31, 2021 “unless extended, modified, or rescinded.”  See id. at 13. 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 44-1   Filed 02/09/21   Page 2 of 6 PageID #:  596

3 
 
appeals presents issues similar to those before the district court.  See, e.g., ING Bank N.V. v. M/V Bulk 
Finland, IMO No. 9691577, No. 15-5975, 2017 WL 2798469, at *2 (E.D. La. June 28, 2017) (“Granting 
a stay pending the resolution of [a] Fifth Circuit case, . . . will conserve the Court’s resources and 
prevent the parties from engaging in unnecessary appeals or undertak[ing] unnecessary discovery and 
pretrial actions.”); Greco v. Nat’l Football League, 116 F. Supp. 3d 744, 761 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (finding 
that “the interests of the parties, and appropriate conservation of judicial resources, weigh in favor of 
granting a stay” where “[t]he issues [on appeal] will very likely bear on this case”); Eaton Vance 
Municipals Tr. v. Conegie, No. 06-117, 2007 WL 1484539, at *1 (N.D. Miss. May 18, 2007) (“While the 
pending appeal does not preclude this Court’s consideration of the issues raised by defendant’s Motion 
to Dismiss, the Court concludes that the interests of judicial economy and efficiency militate in favor 
of a stay.”).  And a court in the Northern District of Georgia recently granted a joint request to stay 
district court proceedings in a matter raising similar challenges to the CDC Order at issue here 
following those plaintiffs’ appeal of the denial of their preliminary injunction motion to the 11th 
Circuit.  See Brown v. Cochran, No. 20-3702, ECF No. 60 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 9, 2020). 
 
Here, a stay pending the resolution of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Circuit appeal would serve the interests 
of judicial economy and efficiency because the Fifth Circuit’s opinion is likely to bear on the resolution 
of the merits issues remaining before this Court.  This Court’s lengthy and well-reasoned ruling 
denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction concluded that they were unlikely to prevail on 
the merits of three of the four counts in their complaint.  See ECF No. 35 at 5–24.  Specifically, this 
Court found that: (1) “Plaintiffs have not clearly shown a substantial likelihood of success on the 
merits as to their claim that the Order was promulgated without statutory and regulatory authority,” 
id. at 17; (2) “Plaintiffs have failed to establish an unconstitutional delegation of authority,” id. at 21; 
and (3) “Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Order is invalid for failure to comply with the notice-
and-comment requirements of the APA,” id. at 24.  Plaintiffs’ appeal of the denial of their motion for 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 44-1   Filed 02/09/21   Page 3 of 6 PageID #:  597

4 
 
preliminary injunction will soon present the same issues for the Fifth Circuit’s consideration, assuming 
Plaintiffs continue to press them.  And now that Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction has been denied in 
this Court, any further motions practice would necessarily bear upon the same merits issues before 
the Fifth Circuit.  As in the Greco matter, in which a court in the Northern District of Texas granted 
an opposed motion to stay district court proceedings pending a Fifth Circuit appeal, “the risk of 
duplicative litigation is too great for this Court to ignore.”  116 F. Supp. 3d at 761. 
 
Nor could discovery or other district court proceedings antecedent to dispositive motions 
practice be conducted during the pendency of the appeal.  This case presents purely legal issues that 
should be decided upon consideration of the administrative record—which Defendants would be 
prepared to file in short order following the resolution of the appeal.2  See 5 U.S.C. § 706.  Thus, if 
proceedings were not stayed, this case would proceed as similar statutory and constitutional challenges 
to the CDC Order have in other district courts:  directly to dispositive motions without discovery.  See 
Tiger Lily LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., No. 20-2692 (W.D. Tenn.) (proceeding to cross-
motions for judgment on the pleadings and judgment on the administrative record following denial 
of preliminary injunction motion); Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-
3377 (D.D.C.) (proceeding directly to cross-motions for summary judgment).  It would waste judicial 
and litigation resources for the parties to brief, or for the Court to consider, dispositive motions prior 
to a Fifth Circuit opinion that may substantially inform, and perhaps control, the resolution of any 
such motions.  See Greco, 116 F. Supp. 3d at 761. 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter a temporary 
                                                 
2 It is unknown what the status of the CDC Order, currently set to expire on March 31, 2021, will be 
when the Fifth Circuit issues its decision.  Should the Order be “extended, modified, or rescinded” 
prior to that decision, any such action could bear upon the contents of the administrative record.  See 
CDC Order at 13. 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 44-1   Filed 02/09/21   Page 4 of 6 PageID #:  598

5 
 
stay of all proceedings in this matter pending the Fifth Circuit’s resolution of Plaintiffs’ appeal, and 
direct the parties to file a joint status report proposing a schedule for any further proceedings within 
14 days of the entry of a mandate by the Fifth Circuit. 
Dated:  February 9, 2020 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
BRIAN M. BOYNTON 
Acting Assistant Attorney General 
 
ERIC BECKENHAUER 
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch 
 
/s/ Steven A. Myers 
STEVEN A. MYERS 
Senior Trial Counsel (NY Bar No. 4823043) 
LESLIE COOPER VIGEN 
Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 1019782) 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 
1100 L Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20005 
Tel:  (202) 305-8648 
Fax:  (202) 616-8470 
E-mail:  Steven.A.Myers@usdoj.gov 
 
Counsel for Defendants
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 44-1   Filed 02/09/21   Page 5 of 6 PageID #:  599

 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify I served this document today by filing it using the Court’s CM/ECF system, 
which will automatically notify all counsel of record. 
Dated:  February 9, 2021 
 
 
/s/ Steven A. Myers 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 44-1   Filed 02/09/21   Page 6 of 6 PageID #:  600

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.lawd.176977.44.1.pdf

Size

115,804 bytes

SHA-256

d4c68b5b9af98d06e6ff57fed622a54fbc43db4f626d37d48216bba72e502bc6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.lawd.176977.44.1.pdf

Original

archive.org