Ahmad et al v. St. Louis, Missouri, City of
Filing
191
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to stay 186 is granted as follows: this case is removed from the August 26, 2019, trial docket and will be reset, if necessary, by further Order of this Court. All deadlines r elating to pre-trial compliance set out in the Case Management Order [Doc. # 81 ] are stayed and will be reset by further Order of this Court. All proceedings in this case are stayed pending disposition of defendant's consolidated appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, except that the Order of Preliminary Injunction entered November 15, 2017 58 is not stayed and remains in full force and effect. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on July 12, 2019. (BRP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MALEEHA AHMAD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:17 CV 2455 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to stay this case
pending appeal. Plaintiffs oppose the motion and the issues are fully briefed. On
May 7, 2019, I granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. [Doc. # 157]. On
May 15, 2019, I denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and to dissolve the
preliminary injunction entered in this case on November 15, 2017. [Doc. # 159].
Defendant appealed both of these orders to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Defendant sought permission to appeal the decision regarding class certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). The Eighth Circuit granted permission to appeal on
June 14, 2019. [Doc. # 172]. However, defendant did not need to seek permission
to appeal the Order denying the motion to dismiss and to dissolve the preliminary
injunction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The appeals have been consolidated.
[Doc. # 190-1]. Defendant’s consolidated brief must be filed with the Eighth
Circuit by July 24, 2019. [Doc. # 190-1].
This case is currently set for a bench trial beginning August 26, 2019. The
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines have passed and initial pre-trial
submissions are due by August 6, 2019. Defendant moves to stay this case
pending the outcome of the appeal on the ground that the Eighth Circuit could
decide that plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this case, thereby rendering any
decision this Court may reach on the merits of plaintiffs’ case moot. Defendant
also submits that forcing it to trial now when the class could be decertified would
subject it to irreparable harm and constitute a waste of resources by the parties and
the Court. Importantly, defendant does not request to stay the preliminary
injunction, which would remain in place pending disposition of the appeal.
Plaintiffs oppose the stay, contending that defendant would not be unduly
prejudiced if forced to go to trial now. Plaintiffs argue that they still intend to
pursue their claims on an individual basis even if the class is ultimately decertified
and the evidence they submit will remain largely the same whether or not the
claims proceed on a class-wide basis.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) applies to interlocutory appeals of
class certification orders. It provides that an “appeal does not stay proceedings in
the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders.” Id. In
2
determining whether to issue a Rule 23(f) stay, courts typically consider four
factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely
to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured
absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other
parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” See
McAllister v. St. Louis Rams, LLC, 2018 WL 2180247, 4: 16 CV 262 SNLJ, at *1
(Apr. 9, 2018). It is less than clear that this standard applies to interlocutory
appeals taken under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See Association of Equipment
Manufacturers v. Burgum, 2018 WL 1773145, at *1 (D.N.D. Mar. 3, 2018). In
either case, however, a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of an
interlocutory appeal undoubtedly “falls within the inherent power of a court to
manage its docket.” Id. A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings
when appropriate to control its docket, conserve judicial resources, and ensure the
matter is handled with economy of time and effort for itself, counsel, and litigants.
Id. The consideration to stay proceedings involves an “exercise of judgment,
which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
After consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court concludes that a stay
of proceedings pending disposition of appeal is appropriate. Although the Court
disagrees with defendant on the merits of its standing argument, if it is successful
3
on appeal then this case must be dismissed. Staying the bench trial pending appeal
conserves judicial resources and prevents the parties from incurring potentially
needless and substantial litigation expense. Even if the case is not dismissed for
lack of standing, the appellate court could conclude that class certification is not
appropriate. Although the Court understands plaintiffs’ position with respect to the
evidence they intend to present, the legal landscape could nevertheless be
dramatically altered if this case proceeds solely on the individual claims of the
named plaintiffs. Given that plaintiffs seek only prospective injunctive relief, such
a ruling could also impact how the defendant chooses to defend itself in this case.
Although plaintiffs cite the passage of time as a factor weighing in favor of
denying the stay, plaintiffs admit that much of their evidence will consist of that
already presented to the Court in the preliminary injunction hearing. Moreover,
discovery is complete. Plaintiffs do not cite any impediment to their ability to
effectively prepare for trial if proceedings are stayed pending appeal. Instead, the
parties will have the ability to more effectively present their evidence and
arguments to the Court once the appellate court decides the issues on appeal.
Finally, as defendant is not requesting a stay of the preliminary injunction the
Court concludes that plaintiffs’ interests and the public’s interest will be protected
during the stay.
Accordingly,
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to stay [186] is
granted as follows: this case is removed from the August 26, 2019, trial docket
and will be reset, if necessary, by further Order of this Court. All deadlines
relating to pre-trial compliance set out in the Case Management Order [Doc.
#81] are stayed and will be reset by further Order of this Court. All
proceedings in this case are stayed pending disposition of defendant’s
consolidated appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, except that the
Order of Preliminary Injunction entered November 15, 2017 [58] is not stayed
and remains in full force and effect.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 12th day of July, 2019.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?