Defendants' Reply 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. 49 · 2021-03-05 · 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-TAD-KDM 
 
Judge Terry A. Doughty 
 
Magistrate Judge Kayla D. McClusky 
 
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY  
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL 
 
 
Federal district courts have busy dockets and limited resources.  In December, this Court 
expended those limited resources, issuing a comprehensive ruling denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a 
preliminary injunction and rejecting nearly every argument that Plaintiffs present in this case.  See ECF 
No. 35 (“PI Op.”).  As the Court held, (1) “the plain text of the statute is unambiguous,” 
unquestionably authorizing the Order at issue, see id. at 9; (2) the Order “is well supported and falls 
firmly within the scope of [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] authority” under the 
relevant regulation, id. at 13; (3) the relevant statute “clearly passes muster” under the nondelegation 
doctrine, id. at 20; and (4) “Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Order is invalid for failure to comply 
with the notice-and-comment requirements of the [Administrative Procedure Act],” id. at 24.  
Plaintiffs have appealed, and the Fifth Circuit will announce in due course whether this Court got it 
right. 
 
The question now is whether it is an efficient use of time for the parties and the Court to 
engage in another round of motions practice in district court that would be duplicative of both (1) the 
litigation that has already occurred in this Court and (2) the appellate litigation occurring now in the 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 49   Filed 03/05/21   Page 1 of 6 PageID #:  634

2 
 
Fifth Circuit.  It is not.  Indeed, there is little chance of the parties completing summary judgment 
briefing before both the Order’s current expiration date and the completion of briefing before the 
Fifth Circuit.  Under these circumstances, and because temporarily staying this action will cause 
Plaintiffs no prejudice, the Court should grant Defendants’ motion to stay district court proceedings 
pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Circuit appeal. 
ARGUMENT 
 
Defendants’ motion to stay district court proceedings, see ECF No. 44 (“Mot.”), demonstrated 
that district courts have inherent discretion to manage their crowded dockets, including by temporarily 
staying actions in the interest of judicial efficiency.  See id. at 2-3.  Plaintiffs agree.  See ECF No. 47 
(“Opp.”) at 3. The few arguments that Plaintiffs offer as to why the Court should not exercise that 
discretion here are unconvincing. 
 
1. 
A temporary stay would cause Plaintiffs no prejudice.  Indeed, this Court has already 
held that the Order is not causing Plaintiffs irreparable harm, reasoning that a final judgment would 
redress any injuries they have suffered even though the Order will remain in effect in the meantime.  
See PI Op. at 24-29.1  Plaintiffs suggest that a stay would prejudice them “because, given the 
temporary nature of the CDC’s Order, it could mean that they are never able to litigate the merits.”  
Opp. at 4.  At the outset, it bears emphasis that Plaintiffs have already litigated their merits theories; 
although this Court decisively rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments, they were nonetheless considered and 
ruled upon.  And in any case, if the Order were to expire and the case were to become moot prior to 
                                                 
1 Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), is plainly distinguishable.  In that case, the Supreme Court 
noted that “delaying trial would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, 
including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.”  Id. at 707-
08.  This, however, is an Administrative Procedure Act case in which review is limited to the 
administrative record and no trial will ever be held.  See Opp. at 2 (“This case requires no discovery, 
as it is limited to the administrative record . . . .”).  There is no risk of evidence being lost or memories 
fading.  Moreover, Defendants are asking this Court to stay this case pending an appellate ruling, not 
for a years-long period equivalent to the length of a presidential term. 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 49   Filed 03/05/21   Page 2 of 6 PageID #:  635

3 
 
the conclusion of briefing, that would simply mean that Plaintiffs obtained the relief they sought 
without the need for additional judicial intervention.  There is nothing wrong with that, for a judicial 
decision is a means to an end, not an end in itself.  See Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the Dist. of 
Columbia, 819 F.3d 476, 485 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (the “cardinal principle of judicial restraint” is “if it is not 
necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more” (quoting PDK Labs, Inc. v. D.E.A., 362 
F.3d 786, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment))). 
 
2. 
Under any circumstances, it is difficult to imagine how the Court might enter final 
judgment prior to the Order’s current scheduled expiration date of March 31, 2021.2  The default 
deadline to respond to a motion for summary judgment is 21 days, see Local Rule 7.5, and Defendants 
would respond to any summary judgment motion filed by Plaintiffs by filing their own cross-motion.  
Moreover, given that Fifth Circuit briefing is set to commerce on March 22, 2021, see Briefing Notice, 
Chambless v. Walensky, No. 21-30037 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 2021), it is not obvious that briefing in this Court 
would be completed prior to the conclusion of briefing in the Fifth Circuit.  No matter how much the 
parties might be able to borrow from their other filings in this case and related litigation pending in 
other Circuits, see Opp. at 3, there is no benefit in requiring the parties to draft briefs on motions that 
could become moot or be overtaken by events before briefing is complete.  And even if the parties 
could complete briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment while the case remained live and 
                                                 
2 Although CDC has reserved the right to extend the Order beyond March 31, 2021, see Temporary 
Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, 86 Fed. Reg. 8020, 8025 
(Feb. 3, 2021), to date it has not done so.  Moreover, if CDC did extend the Order, it might modify it 
in a way that could require the filing of an amended complaint, a new administrative record, and new 
summary judgment briefs; indeed, the Order’s January 2021 extension required the filing of a 
supplemental administrative record and supplemental briefs in numerous cases.  See, e.g., Alabama Ass’n 
of Realtors v. HHS, No. 20-3377, ECF No. 39, Notice of Filing of Supplemental Certified List of 
Contents of the Admin. Record (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2021); Skyworks, Ltd. v. CDC, No. 20-2407, ECF 
No. 47, Defs.’ Supp. Mem. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (N.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2021); Terkel v. 
CDC, No. 20-564, ECF No. 42, Defs.’ Response to Feb. 12, 2021 Order (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2021); 
id. ECF No. 44, Defs.’ Notice of Filing of Supp. Admin Record (E.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2021). 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 49   Filed 03/05/21   Page 3 of 6 PageID #:  636

4 
 
before the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion, that would simply shift the burden to this Court to begin 
drafting an opinion that might become moot (or be superseded by an intervening Fifth Circuit 
opinion) before it issued. 
 
Defendants further note that one other appeal concerning the CDC Order is also pending 
before the Fifth Circuit: the government’s appeal from the district court’s decision in Terkel v. CDC, --- 
F. Supp. 3d ----, 2021 WL 742877 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2021); see also ECF No. 48 (Pls.’ Notice of Supp. 
Auth).  In Terkel, the district court entered a declaratory judgment for the plaintiffs that the CDC 
Order exceeds Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.  
The court in Terkel dismissed two plaintiffs for lack of standing, id. at *3, and, for the five “remaining 
plaintiffs,” entered “summary judgment granting declaratory relief in their favor,” id. at *10.  Terkel is 
irrelevant to this case, as (1) Plaintiffs here do not contend that the CDC Order exceeds Congress’s 
powers under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, though this Court has 
rejected Plaintiffs’ related suggestion that 42 U.S.C. § 264 should be read narrowly to avoid Commerce 
Clause concerns, see PI Op. at 16; and (2) the Terkel judgment does not extend beyond the plaintiffs 
in that case and does not prohibit the application of the Order to any other parties, including the 
Plaintiffs in this case, see 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (court may “declare the rights and other legal relations of 
any interested party seeking such declaration” (emphasis added)). 
*      *      * 
 
No one disputes that Plaintiffs are entitled to judicial resolution of their claims.  Plaintiffs got 
a resolution from this Court when it ruled that their claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits and 
that there was no rush to finally decide the case.  Plaintiffs now have their chance to convince the 
Fifth Circuit that those rulings were error.  Until such time as the parties and the Court hear from the 
Fifth Circuit, it would be extraordinarily inefficient to conduct further proceedings in district court. 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 49   Filed 03/05/21   Page 4 of 6 PageID #:  637

5 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
The Court should grant Defendants’ motion to stay district court proceedings pending appeal. 
Dated:  March 5, 2021 
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 49   Filed 03/05/21   Page 5 of 6 PageID #:  638

 
 
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:  March 5, 2021  
 
/s/ Steven A. Myers 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 49   Filed 03/05/21   Page 6 of 6 PageID #:  639

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.lawd.176977.49.0_2.pdf

Size

122,391 bytes

SHA-256

a53e6ff45356ddae65bb0189fa1181bb6ea54892986b2e0655e4d92d4eb08802

Our copy

gov.uscourts.lawd.176977.49.0_2.pdf

Original

archive.org