Defendants' Opposition to Appeal from Magistrate's Stay Order — Chambless v. Redfield (W.D. La.)

Record facts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM · Doc. 58 · 2021-05-25 · 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’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
APPEAL FROM ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
 
 
In January, Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 
this Court’s order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.  See generally Chambless Enters., 
LLC v. Walensky, No. 21-30037 (5th Cir.).  Plaintiffs have moved without objection to expedite the 
appeal, and the appeal is fully briefed.  At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) Order that Plaintiffs challenge is currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2021—
a mere thirty-six days from now. 
 
Against that backdrop, the question for this Court is whether Magistrate Judge McClusky 
committed clear error when she ruled last month that this case should be stayed pending resolution 
of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Circuit appeal.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (district court must “modify or set aside 
any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law”); see also Blue v. Hill, No. 10-2269, 
2014 WL 2217334, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2014) (review under Rule 72(a) is “highly deferential”).  
She did not.  All parties agree on the governing legal principles, and Plaintiffs concede on the first 
page of their brief that “there may be reasons in some cases to stay district court proceedings” pending 
an interlocutory appeal.  ECF No. 53 (“Appeal”) at 1.  Plaintiffs merely disagree with how Judge 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 58   Filed 05/25/21   Page 1 of 7 PageID #:  774

 
2 
 
McClusky exercised her discretion in weighing the relevant factors.  Even if this Court might have 
chosen to weigh those factors differently, that would not suffice to disturb Judge McClusky’s order.   
 
In any case, Plaintiffs’ arguments fail under any standard of review.  Even if it were possible 
for the parties to complete merits briefing by June 30, that would simply shift the burden to this Court 
to begin drafting an opinion that could be rendered moot by either the Order’s expiration or the entry 
of a Fifth Circuit opinion.  Plaintiffs have no judicially cognizable interest in obtaining an opinion for 
its own sake, and there is no justification for wasting the parties’ and the Court’s resources on 
unnecessary and duplicative motions practice.  The Court should therefore continue to await a ruling 
from the Fifth Circuit before proceeding further. 
RELEVANT BACKGROUND 
 
On September 4, 2020, CDC issued an Order temporarily halting certain residential evictions 
to prevent the further spread of COVID-19.  See 85 Fed. 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 filed 
                                                 
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 86 Fed. Reg. 8020 (Feb. 3, 2021).  That 
Order was scheduled to expire on March 31, 2021, id. at 8025, but in late March, CDC extended the 
Order through June 30, 2021, “subject to revision based on the changing public health landscape.”  86 
Fed. Reg. 16731, 16738 (Mar. 31, 2021). 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 58   Filed 05/25/21   Page 2 of 7 PageID #:  775

 
3 
 
an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit.  See ECF No. 42; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).   
 
On February 29, 2021, Defendants moved to stay this case pending disposition of Plaintiffs’ 
appeal to the Fifth Circuit.  See ECF No. 44.  The Court referred the motion to Judge McClusky, who 
granted it on April 19, 2021.  See ECF No. 52 (“Stay Order”).  As Judge McClusky explained, 
Defendants “would face a hardship if they had to simultaneously defend an appeal that includes an 
evaluation of the case on the merits and defend the case on the merits in district court,” id. at 3; 
Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by a stay, especially because “there is no guarantee that the Plaintiffs 
would receive a final decision prior to the June 30, 2021, expiration of the eviction moratorium” if the 
case were not stayed, id. at 4; and the interests of judicial economy favor a stay because “the Fifth 
Circuit’s ruling on the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction will be informative and 
instructive to the district court on the merits of the case,” id. at 6.  Plaintiffs took all fourteen days 
available under the Federal Rules, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), and then appealed Judge McClusky’s 
decision to this Court, see Appeal. 
 
In the meantime, litigation in the Fifth Circuit has been proceeding apace:  the appeal is fully 
briefed, and Plaintiffs have moved without objection to expedite the appeal.  See generally Chambless 
Enters., LLC v. Walensky, No. 21-30037 (5th Cir. 2021). 
ARGUMENT 
 
Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Judge McClusky all agree on the governing law: a district court has 
broad discretion to stay cases on its docket, and relevant factors to be weighed include prejudice to 
Plaintiffs, prejudice to Defendants, and judicial economy.  Compare Stay Order at 3-6, with Appeal at 
4-10.  Rather than suggest that Judge McClusky misapplied controlling authority, Plaintiffs simply 
quibble with how she exercised her discretion.  That is insufficient, for the clear error standard is not 
satisfied unless this Court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 
committed.”  Jauch v. Nautical Servs., Inc., 470 F.3d 207, 213 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Anderson v. City of 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 58   Filed 05/25/21   Page 3 of 7 PageID #:  776

 
4 
 
Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)).  Indeed, “[f]or issues that are committed by law to a judge’s 
discretion . . . the magistrate’s rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.”  J.M. Smith Corp. v. Ciolino 
Pharmacy Wholesale Distribs., LLC, No. 10-1483, 2012 WL 5938217, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 27, 2012).  
And in any case, Plaintiffs’ arguments fail under any standard of review. 
 
First, a stay will not meaningfully prejudice Plaintiffs, contra Appeal at 4-7, which perhaps 
explains why they waited the full fourteen days available to them to seek review of Judge McClusky’s 
ruling.  Indeed, every court to consider the issue has ruled, like this Court, that the eviction moratorium 
does not cause landlords irreparable harm.  See Order, KBW Inv. Props. LLC v. Azar, ECF No. 16, No. 
20-4852 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2020); Brown v. Azar, 497 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (N.D. Ga. 2020), appeal filed, 
No. 20-14210 (11th Cir. Nov. 9, 2020), mot. for inj. pending appeal denied, No. 20-14210 (11th Cir. Dec. 
17, 2020); Tiger Lily LLC v. HUD, No. 20-2692, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2020 WL 7658126 (W.D. Tenn. 
Nov. 6, 2020); Dixon Ventures, Inc. v. HHS, No. 20-1518, 2021 WL 1604250 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 23, 3021).2  
Plaintiffs continue to argue that a stay may prevent them from receiving a merits decision from this 
Court if the Order expires by its own terms, see Appeal at 5, but Plaintiffs have no judicially cognizable 
interest in obtaining an opinion for its own sake.  To the contrary, if the Order were to expire on its 
own terms, that would simply mean that Plaintiffs obtained the relief they sought without the need 
                                                 
2 On May 6, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority advising the Court of the 
district court’s decision in Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2021 WL 1779282 
(D.D.C. May 5, 2021), which held that the eviction moratorium exceeded CDC’s statutory authority.  
See ECF No. 57.  The Alabama Association of Realtors court issued an immediate administrative stay of 
its own ruling, and on May 14, 2021, it stayed its ruling pending appeal.  See Alabama Association of 
Realtors v. HHS, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2021 WL 1946376 (D.D.C. May 14, 2021).  In staying its ruling, 
the court noted that many financial losses suffered by landlords would be recoverable: “the CDC 
Order itself does not excuse tenants from making rental payments,” and “Congress also has taken 
steps to provide financial relief to tenants and landlords through the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
and the American Rescue Plan Act.”  Id. at *5 (citations omitted).  The Court further held that “the 
magnitude of these additional financial losses is outweighed by the Department’s weighty interest in 
protecting the public.”  Id.  The Alabama Association of Realtors plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay is 
now pending before the D.C. Circuit.  See generally Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS, No. 21-5093 
(D.C. Cir.). 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 58   Filed 05/25/21   Page 4 of 7 PageID #:  777

 
5 
 
for judicial intervention.   
 
In any case, as Judge McClusky correctly noted, it was not clear that this Court could have 
issued a final decision by June 30 even if she had denied Defendants’ stay motion when she ruled on 
April 19.  See Stay Order at 4.  If the Court were to reverse Judge McClusky’s decision now, more than 
a month later, there would be significantly less chance of the Court’s doing so.  While CDC retains 
the authority to extend the Order beyond its current expiration date if public health conditions require 
it, see 86 Fed. Reg. at 16738, Plaintiffs offer only their own speculation that the CDC will do so.  See 
Appeal at 5.  Nor do Plaintiffs provide any basis for their speculation that the Fifth Circuit is unlikely 
to rule before late July, see Appeal at 5.3 
 
Second, there is hardship to Defendants in overturning Judge McClusky’s ruling and requiring 
them to brief the merits while the Fifth Circuit simultaneously considers this case.  While it is true that 
Defendants are litigating challenges to the CDC Order in numerous cases across the country, see 
Appeal at 8, no two cases are identical:  they arise in different circuits, present different claims, and 
rely on different authorities.  Under any circumstances, litigating a complicated administrative law case 
that challenges an important public health directive requires the expenditure of significant resources 
from both CDC and the Department of Justice.  And it would be extraordinarily inefficient in light of 
the significant possibility of the parties’ briefing being rendered moot by either the Order’s expiration 
or the entry of a Fifth Circuit opinion. 
 
Third and finally, Plaintiffs overlook the significant wasted judicial effort that could follow if 
                                                 
3 Plaintiffs note that the Fifth Circuit might not address the merits, and instead address only 
irreparable harm.  See Appeal at 3, 6.  Because irreparable harm is a necessary but not sufficient 
condition to warrant the entry of a preliminary injunction, see, e.g., Tate v. Am. Tugs, Inc., 634 F.2d 869, 
870 (5th Cir. 1981), the only scenario in which the Fifth Circuit could exclusively address irreparable 
harm is if it affirmed this Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.  The possibility that the Fifth 
Circuit might agree with this Court that Plaintiffs are not facing irreparable harm is hardly a reason 
for this Court to rush to decide the merits. 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 58   Filed 05/25/21   Page 5 of 7 PageID #:  778

 
6 
 
the Court lifted the stay.  To be sure, it is theoretically possible to imagine a scenario in which the 
parties completed extraordinarily expedited briefing while the Order remained in effect and before the 
Fifth Circuit ruled.  In such a scenario, the Court would then have to rush to review the briefing and 
begin drafting an opinion—only to have that effort likely wasted by either the expiration of the Order 
or the entry of a Fifth Circuit opinion.  Federal courts do not have unlimited resources, and there is 
no reason for this Court to spend its limited time under these circumstances. 
CONCLUSION 
 
The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ appeal of Judge McClusky’s order. 
Dated:  May 25, 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 58   Filed 05/25/21   Page 6 of 7 PageID #:  779

 
 
 
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:  May 25, 2021  
 
/s/ Steven A. Myers 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:20-cv-01455-TAD-KDM   Document 58   Filed 05/25/21   Page 7 of 7 PageID #:  780

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.lawd.176977.58.0.pdf

Size

129,344 bytes

SHA-256

5c1fe203dc9bb7bed4535b663083fb5d76d9e7c168dee92e1134a211ce0ad425

Our copy

gov.uscourts.lawd.176977.58.0.pdf

Original

archive.org