Defendants’ Motion to Stay or Extend Deadline — Florida v. Nelson

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division) · No. 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW · Doc. 32 · 2021-12-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
BILL NELSON, in his official capacity 
as Administrator of NASA, et al., 
Defendants. 
No. 8:21-cv-2524-SDM-TGW 
 
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,  
TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 
Defendants request a stay of all proceedings in light of the recent nationwide 
injunction issued in Georgia v. Biden, No. 21-cv-00163 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2021), which 
involves a similar challenge to EO 14042 and its implementing guidance, and about 
which Florida submitted a notice of supplemental authority. See Pls.’ Notice, ECF 
No. 29 (including the slip opinion as ECF No. 29-1). Concluding that the President 
likely exceeded his authority under FPASA when issuing Executive Order 14042, the 
Georgia court enjoined the federal government “from enforcing the vaccine mandate 
for federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in any state or ter-
ritory of the United States of America.” Slip Op. at 27. 
So long as it remains in effect, this nationwide injunction eliminates Florida’s 
allegedly irreparable injuries stemming from EO 14042 and its implementing guid-
ance. Accordingly, in the interest of conserving judicial resources, defendants hereby 
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW   Document 32   Filed 12/14/21   Page 1 of 7 PageID 449

2 
move to stay further litigation, unless and until the Georgia injunction is stayed, va-
cated, or narrowed such that adjudicating Florida’s motion for a preliminary injunc-
tion or engaging in further litigation generally would have practical significance. 
In the alternative to staying all deadlines unless and until the Georgia injunc-
tion is stayed, vacated, or narrowed, defendants at a minimum move to extend their 
deadline to respond to Florida’s amended complaint to no earlier than January 21, 
2022. Absent a stay or an extension, defendants must respond to Florida’s amended 
complaint by January 7, 2022. In the event the Court does not grant a stay of all 
deadlines and proceedings in this case, defendants seek to extend their response 
deadline, either to fourteen days after the Court rules on Florida’s pending motion 
for a preliminary injunction or to January 21, 2022, whichever is later. 
Undersigned counsel conferred with Florida’s counsel, who indicated that 
Florida opposes a stay but may consent to extending defendants’ response deadline 
until after this Court decides Florida’s amended preliminary injunction motion.1 
DISCUSSION 
District courts enjoy “inherent managerial power ‘to control the disposition of 
the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and 
for litigants.’” Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 
                                              
1 Specifically, Florida requested that its position be represented as follows: “While the 
government decries nationwide injunctions for ‘preventing legal questions from percolating through 
the federal courts,’ Doc. 21 at 38, it simultaneously seeks to halt that percolation here. But the 
government will presumably seek a stay of any nationwide injunction—which, if granted, would 
leave Florida immediately subject to irreparable harm. Florida respectfully requests a ruling.” 
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW   Document 32   Filed 12/14/21   Page 2 of 7 PageID 450

3 
1985) (quoting In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades, 549 F.2d 1006, 1012 (5th Cir. 
1977)); see also, e.g., Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (recognizing district 
court’s “broad discretion to stay proceedings”). This includes the power to enter a 
stay “pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” 
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Greco v. 
Nat’l Football League, 116 F. Supp. 3d 744, 761 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (acknowledging a 
district court’s “discretion to grant a stay when a related case with substantially simi-
lar issues is pending before a court of appeals”). In determining whether to stay a 
case, the court must consider what is “efficient for its own docket” as well as “the 
fairest course for the parties.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863. 
Here, conservation of the Court’s and the parties’ resources weighs in favor of 
a stay. The requested stay imposes no hardship on Florida: the state is not at risk of 
being harmed by EO 14042 and its implementing guidance as long as the Georgia in-
junction remains in place. In similar situations, courts have readily stayed superflu-
ous proceedings for emergency relief. See, e.g., Pars Equality Center v. Trump, No. 17-
cv-0255-TSC (D.D.C. March 2, 2018), ECF No. 143 (staying request for preliminary 
relief because another nationwide injunction “calls into question whether the harms 
Plaintiffs allege are actually imminent or certain—a prerequisite for a preliminary in-
junction”); Washington v. Trump, No. C17–0141, 2017 WL 4857088, at *6 (W.D. 
Wash. Oct. 27, 2017) (because another district court had “already provide[d] Plaintiff 
States with virtually all the relief they seek,” plaintiffs will not incur “any significant 
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW   Document 32   Filed 12/14/21   Page 3 of 7 PageID 451

4 
harm” by the court’s staying consideration of their TRO motion); Int’l Refugee Assis-
tance Project v. Trump, No. 17-cv-0361, 2017 WL 1315538, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 10, 
2017) (“[I]n light of the current nationwide injunction of Section 6 by the United 
States District Court of the District of Hawaii, a stay would not impose any hardship 
on Plaintiffs or result in irreparable harm.”); Hawaii v. Trump, 233 F. Supp. 3d 850, 
853 (D. Hawaii 2017) (“[T]he Western District of Washington’s nationwide injunc-
tion already provides the State with the comprehensive relief it seeks in this lawsuit. 
As such, the State will not suffer irreparable damage . . . if the Court were to grant 
Defendants’ motion to stay.”). Indeed, another district court has already stayed a 
similar challenge to EO 14042 and its implementing guidance on that basis, over the 
plaintiff’s objection (there, the state of Texas). See Minute Order of Dec. 10, 2021, 
Texas v. Biden, No. 3:21-cv-309-JVB (S.D. Tex.) (“Case is stayed.”). 
To be sure, defendants are seeking to stay or narrow the Georgia injunction. See 
Motion for Stay, Georgia v. President of the United States, No. 21-14269 (11th Cir. Dec. 
10. 2021); see also Georgia, No. 21-cv-00163 (S.D. Ga.), ECF Nos. 96, 97. Those ef-
forts, however, should not deter this Court from staying proceedings here—any deci-
sion by the Eleventh Circuit will control proceedings in this Court. Rather than 
preventing percolation, defendants merely seek to protect this Court’s time and re-
sources with a brief pause so that the Eleventh Circuit can issue a ruling on a sub-
stantially similar case, a ruling that will bind this Court in all events. If the Eleventh 
Circuit modifies the injunction, such that this Court’s adjudication of Florida’s chal-
lenge to EO 14042 and its implementing guidance would have practical significance, 
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW   Document 32   Filed 12/14/21   Page 4 of 7 PageID 452

5 
this Court could lift its stay and—having already received lengthy briefing—be in a 
position to rule promptly. It will also have the benefit of Eleventh Circuit precedent 
on the very issues Florida raises in its request for relief.  
Unless and until that happens, however, Florida cannot show that it is “likely 
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also Holland Am. Inc. Co. v. Succession of Roy, 
777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985) (“Speculative injury is not sufficient; there must be 
more than an unfounded fear on the part of [a preliminary injunction] applicant.”). 
Accordingly, there is no basis for this Court to grant Florida’s pending motion for 
preliminary injunction,2 and there is no need for further litigation regarding EO 
14042 and its implementing guidance at this time. 
In the alternative, if the Court does not grant the stay that defendants are seek-
ing, the Court should extend defendants’ deadline to respond to Florida’s amended 
complaint to fourteen days after the Court rules on Florida’s pending preliminary in-
junction motion or to January 21, 2022, whichever is later. 
CONCLUSION 
This Court should stay all proceedings in this case pending further order of the 
Court.  
                                              
2 To the extent that an Article III case or controversy exists here, the Georgia decision did not 
render it moot. See, e.g., California v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 941 F.3d 410, 420-23 (9th Cir. 
2019), vacated on other grounds by Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. 
Ct. 2367 (2020). Accordingly, the Georgia decision would not prevent the Court from denying 
Florida’s pending motion for preliminary injunction on any of the various grounds discussed in 
defendants’ opposition briefing, ECF Nos. 21 & 26. At present, however, it is simply unnecessary to 
adjudicate Florida’s motion one way or the other.  
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW   Document 32   Filed 12/14/21   Page 5 of 7 PageID 453

6 
DATED: December 14, 2021 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BRIAN M. BOYNTON 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acting Assistant Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BRAD P. ROSENBERG  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant Director  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Kevin Wynosky  
VINITA ANDRAPALLIYAL 
ZACHARY A. AVALLONE 
LEE REEVES 
KEVIN WYNOSKY (PA Bar No. 326087) 
Trial Attorneys 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 
1100 L Street NW, Room 12400 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 616-8267 
Kevin.J.Wynosky@usdoj.gov 
 
Counsel for Defendants 
 
 
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW   Document 32   Filed 12/14/21   Page 6 of 7 PageID 454

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
On December 14, 2021, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with 
the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, using the 
electronic case filing system of the Court.  I hereby certify that I have served all parties 
electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
5(b)(2). 
/s/ Kevin Wynosky  
KEVIN WYNOSKY 
Trial Attorney 
U.S. Department of Justice 
 
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW   Document 32   Filed 12/14/21   Page 7 of 7 PageID 455

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.395435.32.0.pdf

Size

109,469 bytes

SHA-256

017350eadb074db7b9d6b86cff6a486650007609e409fb36da74ef139cfbe304

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.395435.32.0.pdf

Original

archive.org