Szymakowski v. Utah High School Activities Association et al

Filing 136

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - The court GRANTS IN PART Defendants' 127 Motion to Stay. All proceedings in this court are stayed pending resolution of Defendants' appeal of the preliminary injunction. In light of thi s ruling, the court DENIES without prejudice Defendants' 102 Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' 122 Motion for Class Certification. When the appeal is resolved, should the parties wish to do so, they may refile their Motions in their present form or as revised with the benefit of guidance from the Tenth Circuit. The court also DENIES Defendants' 128 Motion for Extension of Time as moot. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 3/7/2025. (mh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

ZACHARY SZYMAKOWSKI, an
individual; and JOHANNA URIBE, on behalf
of FELIPE URIBE, a minor; on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of similarly
situated F-1 students,

Case No. 2:24-cv-00751
Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby

Plaintiffs,
v.
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Utah nonprofit
corporation; ROBERT CUFF, an individual;
MARILYN RICHARDS, an individual;
AMBER SHILL, an individual; BURKE
STAHELI, an individual; DAVID WARREN,
an individual; DAVID LUND, an individual;
ZACK MCKEE, an individual; PAUL
SWEAT, an individual; LUKE
RASMUSSEN, an individual; JERRE
HOLMES, an individual; JASON SMITH, an
individual; MIKE MEES, an individual;
DEVIN SMITH, an individual; BRYAN
DURST, an individual; and BRENT
STRATE, an individual,
Defendants.

Before the court are (1) Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, 1
(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants, 2 (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification, 3 and (4) Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’

1

Dkt. 127, Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (Motion to Stay).

2

Dkt. 102, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants (Motion to Dismiss).

3

Dkt. 122, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.

1

Motion for Class Certification. 4 For the following reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART
Defendants’ Motion to Stay, DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, and DENIES as moot Defendants’ Motion for
Extension of Time.
BACKGROUND
The court recited the facts in detail in its Memorandum Decision and Order entering a
preliminary injunction. 5 As is relevant here, Szymakowski initiated this lawsuit on October 7,
2024, when he filed a proposed class action complaint asserting constitutional and statutory civil
rights claims against Defendants. 6 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 18,
2024. 7 On January 2, 2025, the court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants
from enforcing a Utah High School Activities Association rule limiting F-1 visa holders’
eligibility for varsity athletics. 8 Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on January 21,
2025. 9 Defendants then filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction. 10
And on February 12, 2025, Defendants filed both a Motion to Stay and Motion for Extension of
Time. 11 The Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Stay are fully briefed and ripe for review. 12

Dkt. 128, Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
(Motion for Extension of Time).

4

5

Dkt. 118, Memorandum Decision and Order.

6

Dkt. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 101–28.

7

See Motion to Dismiss.

8

Memorandum Decision and Order.

9

See Motion for Class Certification.

10

Dkt. 123, Notice of Intent to Take Interlocutory Appeal.

11

See Motion to Stay; Motion for Extension of Time.

See Dkt. 115, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants; Dkt. 121, Reply Memorandum Supporting
Motion to Dismiss; Dkt. 131, Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings and Motion for Extension of Time
to Respond to Motion for Class Certification (Response); Dkt. 132, Reply Memorandum Supporting Motion to Stay
(Reply).
12

2

LEGAL STANDARD
“[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.” 13 In determining whether to grant a stay, the court considers:
“(1) whether the stay would promote judicial economy; (2) whether the stay would avoid
possible inconsistent results; and (3) whether the stay would not work undue hardship or
prejudice against the plaintiff.” 14
ANALYSIS
Defendants move for a stay of proceedings in this court pending resolution of their appeal
of the preliminary injunction, “except for the fully briefed and submitted Motion to Dismiss.”15
Defendants argue a partial stay is warranted because a stay: (1) will not prejudice Plaintiffs
because the court has already granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction; 16 (2) will
prevent confusion because the “appeal will provide authoritative guidance” on Plaintiffs’
claims; 17 and (3) will promote judicial economy by “clarify[ing] anticipated motion practice and
eliminat[ing] the risk of duplicative litigation.” 18 Defendants contend the court should not stay
the Motion to Dismiss because it is fully briefed, ruling on the Motion does not pose the “risk of

13

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

Dirtt Env’t Sols., Inc. v. Henderson, No. 1:19-cv-00144-DBB-DBP, 2021 WL 3726604, at *1 (D. Utah Aug. 23,
2021) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Cache Valley Elec. Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., No. 2:13-cv-01120-DN,
2015 WL 164064, at *3 (D. Utah Jan. 13, 2015)).
14

15

Motion to Stay at 2.

16

Id. at 4.

17

Id. at 6.

18

Id. at 7.

3

confusion, inconsistent results, or judicial inefficiency,” and an order would resolve uncertainty
for the fifteen individual defendants. 19
While Plaintiffs do not oppose a stay, they ask the court to “stay the case in its entirety”
to avoid “a piecemeal stay that allows the Court to resolve only issues advanced by
Defendants.” 20 In reply, Defendants urge the court to exempt the Motion to Dismiss from the
stay but indicate a complete stay is acceptable. 21
The court agrees with Defendants that the relevant factors counsel toward granting a stay.
And because Plaintiffs do not oppose the issuance of a stay, the court will grant it. However, the
court finds Defendants’ request to stay all proceedings except the Motion to Dismiss would
prejudice Plaintiffs—Defendants may not use a stay as both a shield and a sword. 22 The court
therefore stays all proceedings in this case pending resolution of Defendants’ appeal of the
preliminary injunction.

19

Id. at 8.

20

Response at 2.

21

Reply at 2–3.

See, e.g., S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. Ross, No. 2:18-cv-03326-RMG, 2019 WL 259116, at *2 (D.S.C.
Jan. 18, 2019) (explaining that “it would be inappropriate” to allow one party “to gain an advantage from a stay” or
another party “to be prejudiced by” it) (citing In re A.H. Robins Co., 828 F.2d 1023, 1026 (4th Cir. 1987) (“Our
system of law universally frowns on a party who would use the stay as both a sword and a shield.”)).
22

4

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to
Stay. 23 All proceedings in this court are stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ appeal of the
preliminary injunction. In light of this ruling, the court DENIES without prejudice Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss 24 and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. 25 When the appeal is
resolved, should the parties wish to do so, they may refile their Motions in their present form or
as revised with the benefit of guidance from the Tenth Circuit. The court also DENIES
Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time 26 as moot.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of March, 2025.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States Chief District Judge

23

Dkt. 127.

24

Dkt. 102.

25

Dkt. 122.

26

Dkt. 128.

5