Missouri Edmo 4 21 Cv 01300 8Th 21 3725 Doc 044 Att 0

Record facts

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · No. 4:21-cv-01300-DDN · Doc. 44 · 2022-01-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, et al. 
Defendants. 
No. 4:21-cv-01300-DDN 
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS  
PENDING APPEAL 
Defendants submit this unopposed request that this Court stay further proceedings in this 
matter pending final resolution of Defendants’ appeal from the Court’s Opinion and Order grant-
ing Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Doc. 36.  As counsel for Plaintiffs indicated 
during the status conference on January 7, 2022, Plaintiffs do not oppose this request.1   
On December 20, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction 
and issued an order enjoining the Federal Government “from enforcing the vaccine mandate for 
federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in Missouri, Nebraska, Alaska, 
Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.”  Doc. 
36.  Defendants noticed their appeal of the Court’s Opinion and Order on January 14, 2022.  See 
Doc. 43.  The parties are currently obligated to submit a Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan by Janu-
ary 14, 2022.  Doc. 40. 
Defendants respectfully suggest that a stay of proceedings pending the final resolution of 
Defendants’ appeal will both promote judicial economy and preserve the resources of the parties 
                                              
1 Counsel for Defendants also spoke separately with Plaintiffs’ counsel, who confirmed 
that Plaintiffs do not oppose a stay of district court proceedings pending appeal. 
Case: 4:21-cv-01300-DDN   Doc. #:  44   Filed: 01/14/22   Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 1290

2 
and this Court.  See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (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 liti-
gants.”).  Defendants’ appeal implicates important legal issues that the parties and the Court will 
likely have to address in future proceedings, including the scope of the President’s authority un-
der the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act.  See Doc. 36, at 6.  An appellate deci-
sion on that issue (and others) will thus likely provide the Court and the parties significant aid in 
the ultimate resolution of this case.  Furthermore, this proposed stay is of a limited and definite 
duration that will not cause undue delay in the resolution of this case.  
Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this unopposed motion 
and stay further district court proceedings in this matter until the parties have exhausted appellate 
proceedings.  
 
DATED: January 14, 2022 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BRIAN M. BOYNTON 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acting Assistant Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BRAD P. ROSENBERG  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant Director  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Zachary A. Avallone 
 
VINITA ANDRAPALLIYAL 
ZACHARY A. AVALLONE 
Trial Attorneys 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 
1100 L Street NW 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 514-2705 
Zachary.a.avallone@usdoj.gov 
 
Counsel for Defendants 
Case: 4:21-cv-01300-DDN   Doc. #:  44   Filed: 01/14/22   Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 1291

File and source

File

Missouri_EDMO_4-21-cv-01300_8th-21-3725__doc-044__att-0.pdf

Size

130,524 bytes

SHA-256

fc4255e1454dd5b0c71b9e09ff8b4020740298497315d1d975582963e3f917b7

Our copy

Missouri_EDMO_4-21-cv-01300_8th-21-3725__doc-044__att-0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com