State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al

Filing 183

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 176 Motion for an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Defendants response to the second amended complaint is now due seven (7) days after the court's disposition of Defendants' pending motion to stay the entire case. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
v.
12
13

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

I.

CASE NO. C17-0141JLR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE A RESPONSE TO THE
SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (MFE (Dkt.

17

# 176)) to file a response to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (SAC (Dkt. # 152)).

18

Defendants request this extension until ten (10) days after the court resolves Defendants’

19

motion to stay these proceedings entirely pending resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v.

20

Trump, No. 17-15589 (9th Cir.), or alternatively, until April 17, 2017, which is a date to

21

which Plaintiffs have agreed. (See MFE at 1, 3; see also MTS (Dkt. # 175).) The court

22

has considered the motion, Plaintiffs’ response (Resp. (Dkt. # 178)), Defendants’ reply

ORDER - 1

1

(Reply (Dkt. # 179)), the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being

2

fully advised, 1 the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion as described

3

below.

4
5

II.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

In addition to the present motion for an extension of time to respond to the second

6

amended complaint, Defendants seek a stay of the entire proceedings pending the Ninth

7

Circuit’s resolution in Hawaii v. Trump. (See MTS.) However, that motion is not noted

8

for the court’s consideration until April 14, 2017. (Id. at 1.) Thus, on March 30, 2017,

9

Defendants also filed the present motion for an extension of the deadline to respond to

10

the second amended complaint, which was due on April 3, 2017. (MFE at 1.)

11

Defendants assert that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hawaii v. Trump is likely to provide

12

substantial guidance to the court and parties in resolving the issues in this case. (Id. at

13

1-2.) Defendants also represent that their response to the second amended complaint

14

“will likely be a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and

15

12(b)(6)” rather than an answer. (Id. at 2.) Finally, Defendants seek the extension of

16

time because their counsel has spent “significant time briefing preliminary motions in

17

other cases challenging Executive Order No. 13,780.” (Id.)

18
19

The United States Department of Justice (“the DOJ”) refers to itself as “the
world’s largest law office, employing more than 10,000 attorneys nationwide.” United

20
1

21
22

Defendants requested a Local Civil Rule 7(i) telephone conference with the court. See
Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(i). The court concludes that oral argument would not aid in its
resolution of this motion. See id. LCR 7(b)(4). Accordingly, the court denies Defendants’
request and issues this written order instead.

ORDER - 2

1

States Department of Justice, Office of Attorney Recruitment,

2

https://www.justice.gov/oarm (last visited Apr. 12, 2017). Given the resources this court

3

has devoted lately to cases challenging Executive Order No. 13,780, the court is

4

confident that the DOJ could enlist one of its more than 10,000 attorneys to draft a

5

response to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.

6

Nevertheless, the court agrees that there is a strong possibility that the Ninth

7

Circuit’s decision in Hawaii v. Trump will inform the parties’ positions and the court’s

8

decisions in this case. Defendants represent that their response to the second amended

9

complaint is likely to be a motion to dismiss, and Defendants’ motion to stay this entire

10

proceeding will be ready for the court’s consideration on April 14, 2017. Accordingly,

11

the court grants Defendants an extension of time to respond to the second amended

12

complaint until seven (7) days after the court’s disposition of Defendants’ motion to

13

stay. 2 Plaintiffs have already agreed that Defendants may have an extension until April

14

17, 2017, and granting Defendants an extension until one week after the court’s

15

disposition of their motion to stay will cause only minimal additional delay.

16
17
18

III.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended

19
20
21
22

2

Defendants ask for an extension until 10 days after the court’s disposition of
Defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings. (MFE at 1.) However, Defendants are presumably
already working on their response and can utilize work product from one or more of the other
cases challenging Executive Order No. 13,780. Thus, the court concludes that seven (7) days
following its order on Defendants’ motion to stay is sufficient.

ORDER - 3

1

complaint (Dkt. # 176). Defendants response to the second amended complaint is now

2

due seven (7) days after the court’s disposition of Defendants’ pending motion to stay the

3

entire case.

4

Dated this 13th day of April, 2017.

5
6

A

7

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4