Court filing
Florida Mdfl 8 21 Cv 02524 11Th 22 10257 Doc 032 Att 0
Summary
Defendants' motion to stay or, in the alternative, to extend the deadline to respond to the complaint in State of Florida v. Bill Nelson, in his official capacity as Administrator of NASA, et al., No. 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, filed December 14, 2021 as Document 32. The motion asks for a stay of all proceedings in light of the nationwide injunction issued in Georgia v. Biden, No. 21-cv-00163 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2021), concerning EO 14042 and its implementing guidance. Defendants argue the injunction removes Florida's alleged irreparable injuries while it remains in effect. In the alternative, they ask to extend their response deadline to fourteen days after the ruling on Florida's preliminary injunction motion or to January 21, 2022, whichever is later. The motion states that Florida opposes a stay.
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. 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW · Doc. 32 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW Document 32 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID 449
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 8:21-cv-2524-SDM-TGW
BILL NELSON, in his official capacity
as Administrator of NASA, et al.,
Defendants.
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 2 of 7 PageID 450
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 moti on
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.”
2
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW Document 32 Filed 12/14/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID 451
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
3
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW Document 32 Filed 12/14/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID 452
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,
4
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW Document 32 Filed 12/14/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID 453
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.
5
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW Document 32 Filed 12/14/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID 454
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
6
Case 8:21-cv-02524-SDM-TGW Document 32 Filed 12/14/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID 455
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
File and source
- File
- Florida_MDFL_8-21-cv-02524_11th-22-10257__doc-032__att-0.pdf
- Size
- 109,470 bytes
- SHA-256
- 76ce1c5378ac6ba8fb208702ae1fa4db13bcfd8fc9b598c6792852a97aa40f51
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com