Doe et al v. Donald Trump, President of The United States et al

Filing 128

ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND ORDER FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS signed by Judge James L. Robart. Pending the filing of the Ninth Circuit's mandate, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the two pending motions on the docket from its calend ar (Dkt. ## 110 , 121 ). The court also ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report within three (3) days of the filing of the Ninth Circuit's mandate proposing how the court should proceed on remand in addressing the issue of mootness. (PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 JOHN DOES, et al., 10 CASE NO. C17-0178JLR Plaintiffs, v. 11 12 DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND ORDER FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (RELATING TO BOTH CASES) CASE NO. C17-1707JLR DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. 19 Before the court is the March 29, 2018, order of the Ninth Circuit Court of 20 Appeals remanding this matter to the district court to address the issue of mootness. (9th 21 Cir. Order (Dkt. # 126).) The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued its mandate. (See 22 generally Dkt.) Nevertheless, the remand implicates both of the presently pending ORDER - 1 1 motions. (See MTS (Dkt. # 110); MFD (Dkt. # 121).) Assuming the mandate issues, 1 2 the court is likely to deny as moot Defendants’ motion to stay these proceedings pending 3 the disposition of the cross-appeals in Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Donald 4 Trump, et al., No. C17-1707JLR (“JFS Case”). (See MTS.) The court also recognizes 5 that JFS Case Plaintiffs’ pending cross-motion for limited expedited discovery 6 concerning Defendants’ compliance with the preliminary injunction may implicate the 7 issue of mootness. (See MFD at 3 (“Plaintiffs intend to oppose the motion [before the 8 Ninth Circuit to dismiss the appeal and to vacate the preliminary injunction as moot] and 9 seek a remand to take discovery on mootness, which will largely overlap with the 10 compliance discovery proposed in this motion.”).) Thus, JFS Case Plaintiffs may wish to 11 incorporate their discovery arguments into any briefing concerning the issue of mootness 12 following issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. 13 Accordingly, pending the filing of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, the court 14 DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the two pending motions on the docket from its calendar 15 (Dkt. ## 110, 121). The court also ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report within 16 three (3) days of the filing of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate proposing how the court should 17 proceed on remand in addressing the issue of mootness. The parties should attempt to 18 agree in good faith on a unified approach. If they cannot so agree, they may outline their 19 20 1 21 22 If any party knows of any reason why the mandate is unlikely to issue in this matter, or if the parties believe that it is unnecessary for the court to wait for the mandate before proceeding to address the issue of mootness, they should so inform the court in writing on the docket as soon as is practicable. ORDER - 2 1 disparate suggestions in the joint status report. If for any reason the Ninth Circuit does 2 not issue a mandate, the court will revisit this order. 3 Dated this 9th day of April, 2018. 4 5 A 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 3

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?