State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 277

Joint MOTION to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Resolution of Defendants' Appeal Brad P. Rosenberg appearing for Defendants John F. Kelly, Rex Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Rosenberg, Brad)

JEFFREY B. WALL
Acting Solicitor General
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELLIOT ENOKI (No. 1528)
Acting United States Attorney
EDRIC M. CHING (No. 6697)
Assistant United States Attorney
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Branch Director
BRAD P. ROSENBERG (DC Bar No. 467513)
MICHELLE R. BENNETT (CO Bar No. 37050)
DANIEL SCHWEI (NY Bar)
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAI’I and
ISMAIL ELSHIKH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United States;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; REX
TILLERSON, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State; and the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKWKSC
JOINT MOTION TO
STAY DISTRICT COURT
PROCEEDINGS
PENDING RESOLUTION
OF DEFENDANTS’
APPEAL
Judge: Hon. Derrick K.
Watson
Hearing: None Requested

JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
PENDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL
The parties hereby jointly move the Court to stay further proceedings in this
case, including the obligation of the Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint, pending final disposition of Defendants’ appeal of this Court’s
preliminary injunction. The basis for this motion is as follows:
1.

On March 29, 2017, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs’

Motion to Convert the Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction.
See ECF No. 270. Defendants appealed that preliminary injunction to the Ninth
Circuit on March 30, 2017. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 271.
2.

There are currently two upcoming deadlines in this case.

First,

Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is due on April 4,
2017. Second, the Court has set its initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for April
18, 2017. See ECF No. 242. Several additional deadlines are associated with or
dependent on the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference pursuant to Rules 16.2(b) and
26.1.
3.

The parties respectfully submit that further proceedings on the merits

of this case should be stayed pending final resolution of Defendants’ appeal of the
preliminary injunction, including through any additional appellate channels in which
relief may be sought. This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an
incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706

(1997); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (“[T]he power
to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the causes of its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.”); Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir.
1972) (district court has discretion to stay proceedings in order to “promote economy
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”) (quotation and citations
omitted). As set forth below, the Court should exercise that control and stay
proceedings here.
4.

The resolution of Defendants’ appeal is likely to affect the scope and

nature of future litigation before this Court, and the Court and the parties will thus
benefit from knowing the resolution of that appeal before engaging in further
proceedings here. See Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, 634 F.
Supp. 2d 1081, 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting stay pending resolution of
interlocutory appeal). Additionally, given the overlap between the issues presented
in Defendants’ appeal and the issues pending before this Court on the merits of
Plaintiffs’ claims, a stay would reduce duplicative litigation of issues subject to
appellate proceedings. Cf. Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F.2d 1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1989)
(“[S]imultaneous proceedings in multiple forums create confusion and duplication
of effort.”). Accordingly, a stay would significantly advance the interests of judicial
economy, reduce the expenditure of time and resources by the parties in this case
2

until it is clear to these parties what sorts of proceedings may be necessary, and
promote an orderly disposition of the issues presented in this case.
5.

The requested stay will not cause undue delay, as both parties have

stated their intention to expedite the appeal. Moreover, because both parties in this
case are amenable to a stay, the balance of interests weighs heavily in favor of
granting a stay.
6.

While Plaintiffs join in this motion for purposes of seeking a stay, they

believe that the circumstances surrounding this motion are unique, and do not
believe that this motion or the requested stay should serve as precedent for other
cases. Plaintiffs’ agreement to file this joint motion does not constitute evidence or
an indication of what Plaintiffs’ position would be for purposes of any other lawsuit.
7.

A Proposed Order is attached hereto.

3

Dated: April 3, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY B. WALL
Acting Solicitor General
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELLIOT ENOKI (No. 1528)
Acting United States Attorney
EDRIC M. CHING (No. 6697)
Assistant United States Attorney
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Brad P. Rosenberg
BRAD P. ROSENBERG (DC Bar. No. 467513)
MICHELLE R. BENNETT (CO Bar. No. 37050)
DANIEL SCHWEI (NY Bar)
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

4

/s/ Neal K. Katyal
DOUGLAS S. CHIN (Bar No. 6465)
Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i
CLYDE J. WADSWORTH (Bar No. 8495)
Solicitor General of the State of Hawai‘i
DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA (Bar No. 7923)
DONNA H. KALAMA (Bar No. 6051)
KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY (Bar No. 7813)
ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI (Bar No. 6743)
Deputy Attorneys General
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone:
(808)
5861500
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i

NEAL K. KATYAL*
COLLEEN ROH SINZDAK*
MITCHELL P. REICH*
ELIZABETH HAGERTY*
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]

THOMAS P. SCHMIDT*
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
SARA SOLOW*
ALEXANDER B. BOWERMAN*
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1835 Market St., 29th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of
Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh

5