Court filing
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay — Chambless v. Redfield
Summary
Doc. 53-2 in Chambless Enterprises LLC, et al. v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, et al., No. 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, filed May 3, 2021, reproduces the plaintiffs' memorandum dated February 26, 2021 opposing the defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending appeal. The plaintiffs argue the defendants have not shown good cause and that a stay would prejudice them because the CDC's Order is of limited duration. They contend the merits require no discovery beyond the administrative record. The memorandum asks the court to deny the stay, direct production of the record and set a schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment. It is followed by a certificate of service and a notice of electronic filing for Document Number 47.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
No. 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM · Doc. 53-2 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case
Case3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM
3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Document
Document 47
53-2 Filed
Filed02/26/21
05/03/21 Page
Page11ofof79PageID
PageID#:#: 603
724
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
CHAMBLESS ENTERPRISES LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:20-cv-1455
v. Judge Terry A. Doughty
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND Magistrate Judge Kayla D.
PREVENTION, et al., McClusky
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL
Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ motion to stay district court proceedings in this matter. A
stay should not issue simply because Plaintiffs have exercised their right to pursue an appeal of
the District Court’s decision denying their motion for preliminary injunction. This Court should
deny Defendants’ motion to stay both because Defendants have failed to show good cause and
because granting a stay would be prejudicial to Plaintiffs. Due to the limited duration of the CDC’s
Order (it is currently scheduled to expire at the end of March, but even if renewed, it will likely be
for a short period), a stay would significantly increase the risk that Plaintiffs will not be able to
litigate the merits of this case at all. On the other hand, a stay would most definitely benefit
Defendants, because it would reduce the chances that they will have to defend the CDC’s Order
on the merits.
Nor will continuing to the merits in this case expend significant resources. Most of the
issues have been briefed already in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Indeed, a merits determination will require fewer issues to be briefed, as Plaintiffs will not be
Case
Case3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM
3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Document
Document 47
53-2 Filed
Filed02/26/21
05/03/21 Page
Page22ofof79PageID
PageID#:#: 604
725
required to show irreparable harm or that the equities and public interest weigh in their favor. This
case requires no discovery, as it is limited to the administrative record, and the Defendants have
already agreed to produce the record quickly. Accordingly, the Court should deny Defendants’
motion for stay and direct the parties to set a schedule for production of the record and cross-
motions for summary judgment.
ARGUMENT
Defendants’ motion rests on a flawed premise. They contend, albeit implicitly, that once
this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs faced a Hobson’s choice:
either appeal the denial of their motion and stand a high risk of losing their right to litigate the
merits, or give up their right to appeal the denial of their preliminary injunction, and continue to
suffer irreparable harm while they litigate the merits. But this premise is wrong. Preliminary
injunctions exist to give individuals who are suffering irreparable harm a means to stop that harm
while a case is litigated on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. See also Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.
v. Dixon, 835 F.2d 554, 562 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that “the purpose of a preliminary injunction
is always to prevent irreparable injury so as to preserve the court’s ability to render a meaningful
decision on the merits”). Preliminary injunctions are appealable on an interlocutory basis for the
same reason: to give litigants suffering irreparable harm the opportunity to stop that harm as
quickly as possible. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See also Interlocutory Injunction Appeals—In
General, 16 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3921 (3d ed.) (explaining that § 1292(a)(1) was designed
to enable “litigants to effectually challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps irreparable
consequence”) (quoting Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 181 (1955), overruled
on other grounds by Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271 (1988) (per
2
Case
Case3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM
3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Document
Document 47
53-2 Filed
Filed02/26/21
05/03/21 Page
Page33ofof79PageID
PageID#:#: 605
726
Reed, J.)). Plaintiffs have the right to pursue both a preliminary injunction, in trial court and later
on appeal, and the merits at the same time. No rule or principle of law suggests otherwise.
While it is true that district courts have discretion to stay proceedings before them, the
burden is on Defendants to show that such a stay is clearly warranted. “[I]f there is even a fair
possibility that the stay for which [the moving party] prays will work damage to someone else,”
the moving party must “make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go
forward.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). See also GATX Aircraft Corp. v. M/V
Courtney Leigh, 768 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1985). Applying this standard, the Supreme Court
refused to grant a stay of trial court proceedings in a case against a sitting president because the
plaintiff’s right to prosecute her case outweighed any impact the case might have on the president’s
ability to discharge his duties. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 690 (1997). See also Hood ex
rel. Mississippi v. Microsoft Corp., 428 F. Supp. 2d 537, 541 (S.D. Miss. 2006) (denying
Microsoft’s motion to stay proceedings pending a motion for transfer and consolidation before the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation).
Here, the Defendants cannot meet their burden for several reasons. First, litigating the
merits in the trial court will cause no prejudice to the Defendants whatsoever. This is one of several
cases challenging the CDC’s Order, so the Defendants have briefed the issues in this case several
times. See ECF No. 44-1, at 4. Having to brief these issues one more time will cost Defendants
very little time. Likewise, the Court is familiar with the issues, having ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion
for preliminary injunction. Although the merits will involve slightly different issues (for example,
the impact of Congress’s moratorium during January and any issues raised by the administrative
record), those new issues will not likely be burdensome to address, and, in any event, they are
important to a proper resolution of this case. By contrast, a stay would negatively impact Plaintiffs
3
Case
Case3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM
3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Document
Document 47
53-2 Filed
Filed02/26/21
05/03/21 Page
Page44ofof79PageID
PageID#:#: 606
727
because, given the temporary nature of the CDC’s Order, it could mean that they are never able to
litigate the merits. Because litigating the merits would not require Plaintiffs to show irreparable
harm or that the equities and public interest weigh in their favor, and it will give them the
opportunity to review and incorporate the administrative record into their arguments, being
deprived of a chance to litigate the merits will prejudice Plaintiffs’ ability to receive the full
resolution of their claims to which they are entitled. See, e.g., Citizens to Preserve Overton Park,
Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419 (1971) (remanding an administrative rule review to the district
court because judicial review must be “based on the full administrative record available to the
[rulemaking officer] at the time”); Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 182 (1995) (holding that
a plaintiff who made a timely challenge to a government actor’s constitutional authority was
entitled to a decision on the merits).
Second, contrary to Defendants’ argument, there is no “risk” of inconsistent decisions or a
waste of judicial resources. If this Court were to rule in Defendants’ favor on the merits, Plaintiffs
would appeal and the Fifth Circuit could either consolidate the appeals or stay one and proceed
with the other. If this Court were to rule for Plaintiffs, the Defendants would appeal and the parties
would presumably agree to dismiss Plaintiffs’ current appeal. If the Fifth Circuit were to issue its
decision in Plaintiffs’ current appeal before this Court decided the merits, this Court would follow
that ruling. It is hard to see how any of these outcomes result in “inconsistent rulings.” Simply put,
sometimes district court decisions are affirmed, sometimes they are overturned. But that is a
feature of litigation, not a bug. Nor would any of these scenarios constitute a waste of judicial
resources. As already noted, the issues on the merits will differ from the issues currently on appeal,
and Plaintiffs are entitled to a ruling on the merits. See, e.g., Huston v. Jones, 863 F.2d 30, 31 (8th
4
Case
Case3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM
3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Document
Document 47
53-2 Filed
Filed02/26/21
05/03/21 Page
Page55ofof79PageID
PageID#:#: 607
728
Cir. 1988) (holding that a litigant was entitled to a decision on the merits where there were no
procedural impediments to his claim).
The Defendants point to no authority for issuing a stay where the stay would likely inhibit
a plaintiff from obtaining judgment on the merits. For that matter, none of their cases concern a
stay of proceedings during an interlocutory appeal. E.g., Eaton Vance Municipals Tr. v. Conegie,
No. 4:06CV117-P-B, 2007 WL 1484539 (N.D. Miss. May 18, 2007) (concerning a stay where
defendant’s collateral estoppel theory hinged upon the outcome of an appeal in a separate suit);
ING Bank N.V. v. M/V Bulk Finland, IMO No. 9691577, No. CV 15-5975, 2017 WL 2798469
(E.D. La. June 28, 2017) (staying district court proceedings only after concluding that there was
little potential for prejudice to the non-moving party). Likewise, Brown v. Cochran, No. 20-3702
(N.D. Ga. Dec. 9, 2020), is inapposite because both parties agreed to the stay. And Tiger Lily LLC
v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., No. 20-2692 (W.D. Tenn.), speaks only to the fact that
the district court could reach the merits quickly, which is only appropriate under the circumstances.
Simply put, there is no reason to delay moving to the merits.
CONCLUSION
The CDC claims the authority to shut down all eviction proceedings in the nation. Plaintiffs
contend that the CDC lacks that power despite the existence of a pandemic. Whichever side is
correct, this case undoubtedly raises extremely important questions concerning federal power and
its impact on citizens and state and local governments. That the Government would prefer not to
produce the administrative record and file a few additional briefs in this case does not justify
staying the case and possibly depriving the Plaintiffs of their right to litigate the merits. This Court
should deny the motion to stay, direct the Defendants to produce the administrative record as soon
5
Case
Case3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM
3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Document
Document 47
53-2 Filed
Filed02/26/21
05/03/21 Page
Page66ofof79PageID
PageID#:#: 608
729
as possible, and instruct the parties to agree on a schedule for filing cross-motions for summary
judgment.
DATED: February 26, 2021.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ STEVEN M. SIMPSON LUKE A. WAKE*
STEVEN M. SIMPSON* DC Bar No. 1009181
DC Bar No. 462553 ETHAN W. BLEVINS*
Pacific Legal Foundation Washington State Bar No. 48219
3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 610 HANNAH SELLS MARCLEY*
Arlington, VA 22201 Washington State Bar No. 52692
Tel: (202) 888-6881 Pacific Legal Foundation
SSimpson@pacificlegal.org 930 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
/s/ JAMES C. RATHER, JR. Tel: (916) 419-7111
JAMES C. RATHER, JR. Fax: (916) 419-7747
Louisiana Bar No. 25839 LWake@pacificlegal.org
ALKER & RATHER, LLC EBlevins@pacifclegal.org
4030 Lonesome Rd., Suite B HMarcley@pacificlegal.org
Mandeville, LA 70448 *Pro hac vice
Tel: (985) 727-7501
JRather@alker-rather.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
Case
Case3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM
3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Document
Document 47
53-2 Filed
Filed02/26/21
05/03/21 Page
Page77ofof79PageID
PageID#:#: 609
730
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 26, 2021.
/s/ Steven M. Simpson
7
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Document 53-2 Filed 05/03/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 731
Kiren Mathews
From: Reply@lawd.uscourts.gov
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 1:51 PM
To: Clerk@lawd.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Chambless Enterprises L L C et al v. Redfield et
al Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to
this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits
attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of
all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees
apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first
viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not
apply.
U.S. District Court
Western District of Louisiana
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Simpson, Steven on 2/26/2021 at 3:50 PM CST and filed on
2/26/2021
Case Name: Chambless Enterprises L L C et al v. Redfield et al
Case Number: 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM
Filer: Apartment Association of Louisiana Inc
Chambless Enterprises L L C
Document Number: 47
Docket Text:
MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [44] MOTION to Stay district court proceedings pending
appeal filed by Apartment Association of Louisiana Inc, Chambless Enterprises L L C.
(aty,Simpson, Steven)
3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Notice has been electronically mailed to:
David H Williams dwilliams@slls.org, courtnotices@ix.netcom.com
Davida Finger dfinger@loyno.edu
Ethan W Blevins EBlevins@pacificlegal.org, bbartels@pacificlegal.org, incominglit@pacificlegal.org,
ppuccio@pacificlegal.org
Hannah S Marcley HMarcley@pacificlegal.org, bbartels@pacificlegal.org, incominglit@pacificlegal.org,
ppuccio@pacificlegal.org
1
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Document 53-2 Filed 05/03/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 732
James C Rather , Jr jrather@alker-rather.com, mbacas@alker-rather.com
Leslie Cooper Vigen leslie.vigen@usdoj.gov
Luke Anthony Wake lwake@pacificlegal.org, bbartels@pacificlegal.org, incominglit@pacificlegal.org,
ppuccio@pacificlegal.org
Steven A Myers steven.a.myers@usdoj.gov
Steven M Simpson ssimpson@pacificlegal.org, incominglit@pacificlegal.org, ppuccio@pacificlegal.org
Walter P McClatchey , Jr walter@la-law.org, shannin@la-law.org
William P Quigley quigley77@gmail.com, dadupre77@yahoo.com
3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM Notice will not be electronically mailed to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1045083339 [Date=2/26/2021] [FileNumber=5411392-0
] [67d1f1ff8a761191b126453f6820b385153d00793317ad74702fc2b66631758a259
952b9efde6656be0db7fffc49e65ef6c4b972d876f4c87da3bc1d04fac853]]
2
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.lawd.176977.53.2.pdf
- Size
- 211,937 bytes
- SHA-256
- b32e51623c2ff8929528a1fcfa02fc7271d5dfd13f982f2303eaa2150afa5c27
- Original
- archive.org