Court filing
Motion to Stay Proceedings — East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump
Filed February 11, 2019 in East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump; one of 67 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | N.D. Cal. |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2019-02-11 |
N.D. Cal. · No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST · Doc. 109 · 2019-02-11 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
SCOTT G. STEWART
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
PATRICK GLEN
Senior Litigation Counsel
JOSEPH DARROW
CHRISTINA GREER
FRANCESCA GENOVA
Trial Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Tel: (202) 305-1062
Email: Francesca.M.Genova@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
)
Donald J. Trump, President of the United )
States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Defendants hereby move to stay district court proceedings in this case pending resolution
of Defendants’ appeal.1 On December 26, 2018, Defendants filed a notice of appeal from this
1 In an email dated January 30, 2019, counsel for Plaintiffs represented that they take no position
on the motion for a stay.
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 109 Filed 02/11/19 Page 1 of 6
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court’s order issuing a preliminary injunction of the rule, “Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry Under
Certain Presidential Proclamations; Procedures for Protection Claims” (the “Rule”), 83 Fed. Reg.
55,934 (Nov. 9, 2018). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently lifted the abeyance
of that appeal and set the deadline of March 1, 2019, for the opening brief. East Bay Sanctuary
Covenant v. Donald Trump, No. 18-17436, ECF No. 18 (9th Cir.). On February 7, 2019, the
presidential Proclamation discussed in this Court’s prior opinions expired by its own terms, and
the President issued a new Proclamation, Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration
Through the Southern Border of the United States (Feb. 7, 2019), suspending and limiting entry
across the southern border between ports of entry for an additional 90 days. See
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-addressing-mass-
migration-southern-border-united-states-2/. Nothing in that new proclamation, which recognizes
this Court’s injunction of the Rule, affects this motion.
Staying the case would promote the orderly course of justice. As explained below, the
Ninth Circuit’s decision is likely to provide substantial guidance to this Court and the parties in
resolving this case. Proceeding in the absence of that guidance would be inefficient and waste the
resources of the Court and the parties. Plaintiffs will not be harmed by a brief stay while the Ninth
Circuit resolves an appeal in this case, as this Court’s injunction will remain in place during that
time.
“The District 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). The Ninth Circuit has
described various factors that should be considered when evaluating a motion to stay proceedings:
Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests
which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.
Among these competing interests are the possible damage which may result from
the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being
required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be
expected to result from a stay.
CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). All three factors warrant a stay of district
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 109 Filed 02/11/19 Page 2 of 6
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
court proceedings in this case pending resolution of the appeal.
First, a stay would serve “the orderly course of justice” by “simplifying” or resolving
central and potentially dispositive issues in this litigation. Id. The Ninth Circuit’s decision could
materially affect how this case proceeds in this Court. This Court held that the Plaintiffs were
likely to succeed on their claims that they had organizational standing to sue, that they were within
the zone of interests of the statute under the Administrative Procedure Act, that the Rule was
contrary to statute as a matter of law, and that the foreign-affairs exception to notice and comment
did not apply. See Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, ECF 99. All of those issues are before
the Ninth Circuit, and, as this Court noted, any legal questions that the Ninth Circuit decides at the
preliminary-injunction stage will bind this Court. Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, ECF 99,
at 8. The Ninth Circuit could thus definitively resolve critical legal issues in this case. Further,
this Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction noted that “the law of the circuit” doctrine
constrained its decision-making at the preliminary injunction stage. Id. That law of the circuit
may change with the merits decision on the preliminary injunction.
As this Court has held, a stay is warranted when there are “serious legal questions on
appeal.” Todd v. Tempur-Sealy Int’l, Inc., No. 13-CV-04984-JST, 2016 WL 6082413, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 18, 2016) (Tigar, J.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That is the situation
here, where many of the core issues are purely legal and a panel of the Ninth Circuit has divided
on the resolution of some of those issues. See East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Donald Trump,
No. 18-17436, ECF No. 10 (9th Cir.); see also United States v. California, No. 2:18-cv-490, ECF
214 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018) (granting a stay of proceedings in district court pending the
resolution of an appeal of a preliminary ruling when the appeal would likely resolve several legal
questions before the court); Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-141, ECF 189 (W.D. Wash. May 17,
2017) (granting a stay when the Ninth Circuit was considering a preliminary injunction appeal in
a case challenging the same action); Texas v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-254, ECF 271 (S.D. Tex.
June 11, 2015) (granting a stay of district court proceedings pending a preliminary injunction
appeal of Administrative Procedure Act claims).
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 109 Filed 02/11/19 Page 3 of 6
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A stay would also serve “the orderly course of justice” by preserving judicial resources.
CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268. Any deadlines set before the Ninth Circuit renders its decision would
be premature and may need reconsideration in light of that decision. Additionally, if this case
were to continue until final judgment, rendering the preliminary injunction moot, the Ninth Circuit
would be required to rededicate its resources to the entire case at that stage, even though it may
properly determine the legal issues that are before it at this time. The judicial resources dedicated
to the appeal would thus be wasted. A stay would avoid that result.
Second, a stay will eliminate the “hardship and inequity” that the parties would otherwise
suffer in “being required to go forward” without guidance from the Ninth Circuit. CMAX, Inc.,
300 F.2d at 268. Just as the Court would devote time and resources to proceeding, so too the
parties would devote their own resources to litigating issues that may ultimately be mooted or
clarified by the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
Third, Plaintiffs will not suffer any harm from a stay of the case, as the preliminary
injunction enjoining application of the Rule will remain in effect throughout the duration of the
appeal. See Google Inc. v. Creative Labs, Inc., No. 16-CV-02628-JST, 2016 WL 6947564, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2016) (Tigar, J.) (granting a stay of proceedings when no concrete harm to
nonmovant would result from it). Indeed, they have not opposed this motion, instead taking no
position. As such, their legal situation will remain unchanged during a stay.
Finally, a stay is in the public interest because it preserves resources for all parties,
including public resources.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should stay this case at the district court pending
resolution of the appeal.
//
//
//
//
//
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 109 Filed 02/11/19 Page 4 of 6
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
SCOTT G. STEWART
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
PATRICK GLEN
Senior Litigation Counsel
By: /s/ Francesca Genova
FRANCESCA GENOVA
Trial Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Tel: (202) 305-1062
Email: Francesca.M.Genova@usdoj.gov
JOSEPH DARROW
CHRISTINA GREER
Trial Attorneys
Dated: February 11, 2019
Attorneys for Defendants
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 109 Filed 02/11/19 Page 5 of 6
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 11, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of for the Northern District of California
by using the CM/ECF system. Counsel in the case are registered CM/ECF users and service will
be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
By: /s/ Francesca Genova
FRANCESCA GENOVA
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 109 Filed 02/11/19 Page 6 of 6File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.334557.109.0.pdf
- Size
- 63,447 bytes
- SHA-256
- 339dec7054afa471103a19d64f716bb2c376bc3ceb733f073dacf7db700abd76
- Original
- archive.org