Motion to Reconsider Minute Order and Enter Judgment — State of Washington v. DeVos (W.D. Wash., Doc. 66)

Summary

Plaintiff State of Washington's Motion to Reconsider the October 26, 2020 Minute Order and to Enter Judgment for Washington, Doc. 66, filed November 9, 2020 in State of Washington v. Betsy DeVos, et al., No. 2:20-cv-01119-BJR (W.D. Wash., Seattle; The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein). The motion asks the Court to withdraw its minute order dismissing the case and convert its preliminary injunction against the April 30, 2020 Guidance and the July 1, 2020 interim final rule into a final judgment. It states that the District of Columbia district court vacated the rule on September 4, 2020 and that Washington prefers its own judgment in case it needs to seek enforcement. Paul M. Crisalli signs it as Assistant Attorney General.

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

Cite this document

“Motion to Reconsider Minute Order and Enter Judgment — State of Washington v. DeVos (W.D. Wash., Doc. 66).” Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/document-state-of-washington-v-devos-no-2-20-cv-01119-w-d-wash-doc-66-892b791fb3/, SHA-256 0de412dc4151129828da1dd2527e4c3a2844c0071dc218526ffe753ee80de3d4.

Full text

Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 5

1 ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
2
PAUL M. CRISALLI, WSBA #40681
3 BRIAN H. ROWE, WSBA #56817
R. JULY SIMPSON, WSBA #45869
4 JEFFREY T. SPRUNG, WSBA #23607
SPENCER W. COATES, WSBA #49683
5 Assistant Attorneys General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
6 Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464-7744
7
The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
10
STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 2:20-cv-01119-BJR
11
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF STATE OF
12 WASHINGTON’S MOTION TO
v. RECONSIDER THE OCTOBER 26,
13 2020 MINUTE ORDER AND TO
BETSY DeVOS, in her official capacity as ENTER JUDGMENT FOR
14 Secretary of the United States Department of WASHINGTON
Education; and the UNITED STATES
15 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, a federal
agency,
16
Defendants.
17

18 I. INTRODUCTION
19 This Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants’ April 30, 2020
20 Guidance (April Guidance) and July 1, 2020 interim final rule (IFR). The Court’s October 26,
21 2020 minute order dismissing this case supersedes that preliminary injunction. While there is a
22 decision from the District of Columbia vacating the IFR in NAACP v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-1996
23 (DLF), 2020 WL 5291406 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2020), Washington’s interests are not sufficiently
24 protected by that decision, where enforcement of that decision imposes additional steps on
25 Washington to file a new case and bring emergency motions, as compared to simply enforcing
26
PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Complex Litigation Division
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE 800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
OCTOBER 26, 2020 MINUTE ORDER Seattle, WA 98104
AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR (206) 464-7744
WASHINGTON
NO. 2:20-cv-01119-BJR
Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 5

1 its own judgment. With approximately two months still left in the current administration,

2 Washington prefers to have its own judgment in the event it needs to seek enforcement. The

3 Court should withdraw its October 26, 2020 minute order and convert the preliminary injunction

4 into a final judgment in favor of Washington.

5 II. FACTS

6 In July 2020, Washington filed suit against the Defendants, challenging the April

7 Guidance and the IFR, which interpreted the CARES Act provisions for providing funding to

8 primary and secondary education. ECF # 1. This Court preliminary enjoined both the April

9 Guidance and the IFR on August 21, 2020. ECF # 54 at p. 21.

10 On September 4, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

11 entered a summary judgment order vacating the IFR. NAACP, 2020 WL 5291406. Following

12 that decision, after a status conference addressing the impact of the case, Washington moved for

13 summary judgment. ECF # 64. Defendants did not notify the Court whether they intended to

14 appeal, as this Court ordered, and Defendants have submitted no response to the summary

15 judgment motion. The Defendants ultimately publicly indicated that they would not appeal the

16 District of Columbia district court’s summary judgment decision. On October 9, the Department

17 issued Guidance (October Guidance) that recognized the vacatur of the rule but also included

18 similar, if not identical provisions as in the April Guidance. 1

19 Washington and other Plaintiff States have had discussions with Defendants about the

20 possibility of an agreed judgment. During those discussions, this Court entered a minute order

21 dismissing the case, finding that the District of Columbia district court’s decision had effectively

22 enjoined the rule at issue in this case. ECF # 65. Washington now brings this motion to withdraw

23 that order and convert its preliminary injunction into a final judgment. 2

24 1
Available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/10/Providing-Equitable-Services-under-the-CARES-Act-
Programs-Update-10-9-2020.pdf (last accessed Nov. 9, 2020).
25 2
The Defendants informed the Washington that their position is: “the claim presented in this case is moot
because Plaintiff has received all the relief requested in its Complaint. There is, therefore, no reason for the Court
26
PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Complex Litigation Division
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE 800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
OCTOBER 26, 2020 MINUTE ORDER Seattle, WA 98104
AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR (206) 464-7744
WASHINGTON
NO. 2:20-cv-01119-BJR
Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 5

1 III. ARGUMENT

2 When this Court preliminarily enjoined the April Guidance and the IFR, it made clear its

3 views on Defendants’ legal errors. As the Court is aware, other courts came to similar

4 conclusions. When this Court dismissed the case as moot because of those decisions, it

5 superseded its preliminary injunction order. While there is a final order from another court

6 vacating the IFR, Washington was not a party to that case. With this case now dismissed and no

7 preliminary injunction in force, Washington would have to file a new suit and engage in motions

8 practice if the Defendants fail to follow the terms of the District of Columbia’s decision. This

9 means that Washington would have to pass unnecessary hurdles, particularly where there is

10 about two months left until a change in administrations.

11 Consequently, Washington respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in this

12 case. In that case, if Defendants fail to follow the Court’s ruling, Washington has a quicker and

13 easier process to seek enforcement of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 70; see California v. Azar,

14 911 F.3d 558, 583−84 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. Little Sisters of the Poor Jeanne

15 Jugan Residence v. California, 139 S. Ct. 2716, 204 L. Ed. 2d 1111 (2019) (explaining need for

16 district court to address claims despite an injunction in another circuit). Accordingly, because

17 this Court has already engaged in the legal analysis, the Court should reconsider its order

18 dismissing the case and enter a judgment in favor of Washington that enjoins the April Guidance

19 and IFR.

20 IV. CONCLUSION

21 The Court should withdraw its October 26 minute order dismissing the case and enter

22 judgment for Washington.

25 to reconsider its dismissal; should Plaintiff proceed with filing such a motion, please indicate that Defendants oppose
on the ground that the case is moot.”
26
PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Complex Litigation Division
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE 800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
OCTOBER 26, 2020 MINUTE ORDER Seattle, WA 98104
AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR (206) 464-7744
WASHINGTON
NO. 2:20-cv-01119-BJR
Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 5

1 DATED this 9th day of November 2020.

2 ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
3

4 s/ Paul M. Crisalli
PAUL M. CRISALLI, WSBA #40681
5 BRIAN H. ROWE, WSBA #56817
R. JULY SIMPSON, WSBA #45869
6 JEFFREY T. SPRUNG, WSBA #23607
SPENCER W. COATES, WSBA #49683
7 Assistant Attorneys General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
8 Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-744
9 paul.crisalli@atg.wa.gov
brian.rowe@atg.wa.gov
10 july.simpson@atg.wa.gov
jeff.sprung@atg.wa.gov
11 spencer.coates@atg.wa.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Washington
12

26
PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 4 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Complex Litigation Division
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE 800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
OCTOBER 26, 2020 MINUTE ORDER Seattle, WA 98104
AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR (206) 464-7744
WASHINGTON
NO. 2:20-cv-01119-BJR
Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 5

1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE

2 I hereby declare that on this day I caused the foregoing document to be electronically

3 filed with the Clerk of the Court using the Court’s CM/ECF System, which will serve a copy of

4 this document upon all counsel of record.

5 DATED this 9th day of November 2020, at Seattle, Washington.

6
s/ Paul M. Crisalli
7 PAUL M. CRISALLI, WSBA #40681
Assistant Attorney General
8

26
PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 5 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Complex Litigation Division
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE 800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
OCTOBER 26, 2020 MINUTE ORDER Seattle, WA 98104
AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR (206) 464-7744
WASHINGTON
NO. 2:20-cv-01119-BJR

File and source

File: 66-motion-for-reconsideration-re-65-order-dismissing-case-filed.pdf
Size: 446,044 bytes
SHA-256: 0de412dc4151129828da1dd2527e4c3a2844c0071dc218526ffe753ee80de3d4
Our copy: 66-motion-for-reconsideration-re-65-order-dismissing-case-filed.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com