Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal — State of Georgia v. Biden (Doc. 102)

Summary

Document 102, a four-page Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal dated December 17, 2021 in The State of Georgia, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Case No. 1:21-cv-163-RSB-BKE, Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division. Defendants seek a stay pending appeal of the December 7, 2021 Order granting a preliminary injunction, and state that Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion and Intervenors agree to it. They state that a stay will promote judicial economy and that an appellate decision on questions of jurisdiction and the scope of the President's authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act will likely aid resolution of the case. The signature block shows /s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal and /s/ Bradford C. Patrick.

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

Record facts

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 4

File and source

File

Georgia_SDGA_1-21-cv-00163_11th-21-14269__doc-102__att-0.pdf

Size

148,187 bytes

SHA-256

d526c6eb8a3d098cbe31c331bfa88bc382901018623cebaab66a0077458ba524

Our copy

Georgia_SDGA_1-21-cv-00163_11th-21-14269__doc-102__att-0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com