Court filing
Georgia Sdga 1 21 Cv 00163 11Th 21 14269 Doc 102 Att 0
Filed December 17, 2021 in Federal Contractor Mandates; one of 57 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | United States District Court, For The Southern District Of Georgia, Augusta Division |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-12-17 |
United States District Court, For The Southern District Of Georgia, Augusta Division · No. 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE · Doc. 102 · 2021-12-17 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN in his official
capacity as President of the United
States, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:21-cv-163-RSB-BKE
DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL
Defendants respectfully seek a stay of proceedings pending appeal of this Court’s
December 7, 2021 Order granting a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 94; see also Defs.’ Notice of
Appeal, ECF No. 96. Counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs and Intervenors
before filing this motion. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion and Intervenors agree to the motion.
On December 7, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ and Intervenrs’ motions for a
preliminary injunction and enjoined the Federal Government “from enforcing the vaccine mandate
for federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in in any state or territory of the
United States of America.” Id. at 27. Defendants appealed the Court’s order on December 9, 2021.
See ECF No. 96. Defendants are currently obligated to respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
on or before December 31, 2021, and to Intervenors’ Amended Complaint on or before February
7, 2021.
A stay of proceedings pending the final resolution of Defendants’ appeal will promote
judicial economy and preserve the resources of the parties and this Court. See Landis v. North Am.
Case 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE Document 102 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 4
2
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936) (A district court's “power to stay proceedings is incidental to
the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”); accord Claridy v. City of
Lake City, No. 3:13-cv-558, 2014 WL 11430972, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2014). Defendants’
appeal implicates important legal issues that the parties and the Court will likely have to address
in future proceedings, including questions pertaining this Court’s jurisdiction and the scope of the
President’s authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. See Order at
12–16, 17–23. An appellate decision on those (and other) issues will thus likely provide the Court
and the parties significant aid in the ultimate resolution of this case.1 Cf. RREEF Infrastructure
(G.P.) Ltd. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:19-cv-03783 (CJN), 2021 WL 1226714, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar.
31, 2021) (“[L]itigating essentially the same issues in two separate forums is not in the interest of
judicial economy,” particularly when “it is clear that the outcome of the other proceedings may
affect this Court’s determinations.” (alterations adopted and citations omitted)).
Further, Plaintiffs and Intervenors will not be prejudiced by the proposed stay because they
will not be harmed by Executive Order 14,042 and the other executive actions they challenged so
long as this Court’s preliminary injunction remains in place. Finally, because Defendants request
1 District courts routinely stay proceedings in similar circumstances to await guidance from
appellate courts. See, e.g., Minn. Voters Alliance v. Walz, 494 F. Supp. 3d 610, 611–12 (D. Minn.
2020) (staying proceedings pending appeal of preliminary injunction because, inter alia, “the
appeal is likely to resolve some of the legal issues in dispute”); Beltronics USA, Inc. v. Midwest
Inventory Distribution, LLC, 545 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1190 (D. Kan. 2008) (staying proceedings
pending appeal of preliminary injunction to await the Tenth Circuit’s resolution of a legal issue
that “would significantly advance the course of this litigation” and best serve “the time and effort
of the parties and the court”); Bray v. QFA Royalties, LLC, No. 06-cv-02528, 2007 WL 2688858,
at *1 (D. Colo. Sept. 12, 2007) (staying proceedings pending appeal of preliminary injunction
because “the Tenth Circuit’s determination of the legal issues inherent in my preliminary
injunction decision will edify further proceedings on those same . . . claims for permanent
injunctive relief”).
Case 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE Document 102 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 4
3
a stay only for the duration of their appeal, their proposed stay is of a limited nature and will not
cause undue delay in the resolution of this case.
Accordingly, Defendants request that this Court stay further district court proceedings in
this matter until the parties have exhausted appellate proceedings.
Dated: December 17, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Acting Assistant Attorney General
DAVID ESTES
United States Attorney
BRAD P. ROSENBERG
Assistant Branch Director
Civil Division
/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal
VINITA B. ANDRAPALLIYAL
LEE REEVES
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box No. 883, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Phone: (202) 305-0845
Fax: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov
/s/ Bradford C. Patrick
Bradford C. Patrick
Assistant United States Attorney
South Carolina Bar No. 102092
Post Office Box 8970
Savannah, Georgia 31412
Telephone: (912) 652-4422
Email: bradford.patrick@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
Case 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE Document 102 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 4
4
Case 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE Document 102 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 4File and source
- File
- Georgia_SDGA_1-21-cv-00163_11th-21-14269__doc-102__att-0.pdf
- Size
- 148,187 bytes
- SHA-256
- d526c6eb8a3d098cbe31c331bfa88bc382901018623cebaab66a0077458ba524
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com