Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America et al

Filing 54

Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Stay filed by Defendants United States of America, Donald H Rumsfeld re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Vacate Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, Case Stayed,, #52 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Vacate Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, Case Stayed,, #52 #53 (West, Roger)

Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America et al

Doc. 54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General THOMAS P. O"BRIEN United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY PAUL G. FREEBORNE U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: paul.freeborne@ usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants United States of America and Secretary of Defense UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ) ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of ) Defense, ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

Case No. CV04-8425 (GPS) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER VACATING STAY

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER VACATING STAY

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On May 23, 2008, this Court exercised its discretion to stay this action pending the final disposition of the court of appeals decision in Witt v. Department of Air Force, No. 06-35644, slip op. (9th Cir. May 21, 2008). May 23, 2008 Order [Dkt. 52], at 2. "[A]nticipating that en banc relief will be requested and certiorari possibly sought [of the panel's decision]," the Court opted to stay further proceedings until the impact of that decision is settled. The government is currently considering whether to seek en banc review of the panel decision in Witt. A rehearing en banc petition must be authorized by the Solicitor General, 28 C.F.R. § 0.20(b), but his office has not yet had the opportunity to review that decision. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the Court has not "exceed[ed] the limits" of its discretion in staying this matter. Pl's Ex Parte Application, at 6. "[T]he 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." Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153(1936). "A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear on the case." Levya v. Certified Grocers of Calif., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (1979). While plaintiff is correct in recognizing that such a stay may not be "indefinite in nature[,]" Pl's Ex Parte Application, at 6 (citing Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v, Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007)), the stay put in place here is clearly limited in duration and specifically defined to end when the courts resolve the binding nature of the panel decision in Witt. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit's mandate in Witt will not issue "until 7 calendar days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires [ i.e.., on July 14, 2008,] or 7 calendar days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate,
-2OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER VACATING STAY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

whichever is later." Fed. R. App. P. 41(b). Because the district court in Witt itself cannot now proceed with remand proceedings, it would make no sense for this Court to proceed before the Witt mandate issues. While plaintiff asserts that it is somehow the Court's fault that the issues presented have not yet been decided, omitted from that discussion is any acknowledgment by plaintiff that this case was delayed at the outset by its persistent refusal to identify a single member among its membership who suffered any harm as a result of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute. And while plaintiff now claims that the "Court's stay will simply prolong and exacerbate the hardships suffered by the members of the Log Cabin Republicans and other gay and lesbian soldiers who are bravely serving in the nation's armed forces[,]" Pl's Ex Parte Application, at 7, no such harm has been presented in this case. The Court has previously recognized that "[i]t is well settled . . . that a plaintiff invoking associational standing must allege facts sufficient to show that "`its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right[.]'" Order, dated March 21, 2006 [Dkt. # 24], at 9 (quoting Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertizing Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1977)). Associational standing thus requires a showing that a plaintiff's members have suffered a "concrete and particularized injury sufficient to give [them] a personal stake in the outcome of the case." Id. Despite that ruling, plaintiff has refused to identify a single current member of the Armed Forces who has suffered the harm that it continues to allege. Plaintiff's purported attempt to thus assert a "facial" challenge to the statute on behalf of all current service members (Pl's Ex Parte Application, at 10) is a claim that plaintiff has failed to properly present and is one that the Court could not consider even if the stayed were lifted. Lastly, the fact that plaintiff's case presents a First Amendment claim is not grounds to vacate the stay. Pl's Ex Parte Application, at 9-10. The claims presented here and in Witt need not be identical for the Court to enter a stay based
-3OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER VACATING STAY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

upon principles of judicial economy; in Landis, the Supreme Court specifically rejected any "suggestion that before proceedings in one suit may be stayed to abide the proceedings in another, the parties to the two causes must be shown to be the same and the issues identical." Landis, 299 U.S. at 166. The Court's May 23, 2008 Order should thus remain in force, and plainitff's ex parte application to vacate that order should be denied. Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director /s/ Paul G. Freeborne PAUL G. FREEBORNE Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Room 6108 Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] pa u l . f r e e b o r n e @ u s d o j . g o v

Dated: June 2, 2008

-4-

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER VACATING STAY