Karnoski et al v. Trump et al

Filing 274

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: Defenants' 238 MOTION to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal. Parties are ordered to show cause why Defendants' Motion to Stay the Preliminary Injunction should not be renoted until after the Ninth Circuit enters a ruling or otherwise disposes of the appeal. Show Cause response due within seven (7) days of this order. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

RYAN KARNOSKI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

17

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Preliminary
Injunction Pending Appeal. (Dkt. No. 238.) Having reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt.
No. 250, 257), the Reply (Dkt. No. 261) and all related papers, the Court ORDERS as follows:

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING MOTION TO STAY

v.

12

16

CASE NO. C17-1297-MJP

On December 11, 2017, this Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring
Defendants from “taking any action relative to transgender individuals that is inconsistent with
the status quo” that existed prior to President Trump’s Twitter Announcement and 2017
Memorandum excluding transgender people from serving openly in the military. (Dkt. No. 103
at 23.)

23
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING MOTION TO STAY - 1

1

On April 13, 2018, the Court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs and

2

Washington, and ordered the preliminary injunction to remain in effect. (See Dkt. No. 233.) In

3

its summary judgment order, the Court found that the 2018 Memorandum and the

4

Implementation Plan did not “substantively rescind or revoke” the Ban, but instead “threaten the

5

very same violations that caused it and others to enjoin the Ban in the first place.” (Id. at 12.)

6

On April 30, 2018, Defendants filed concurrently their Notice of Appeal to the Ninth

7

Circuit (Dkt. No. 236) and this Motion to Stay the Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 238).

8

Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion seeking identical relief from the Ninth Circuit. (See

9

Defendants-Appellants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, Karnoski et al. v. Trump, et al., No.

10
11

18-35347 (9th Cir. May 4, 2018), ECF No. 3.) The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue its ruling.
It is well-settled that the filing of a notice of appeal generally “confers jurisdiction on the

12

court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case

13

involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982);

14

see also Paige v. State of Cal., 102 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that appellate

15

court’s jurisdiction extends to matters “inextricably bound up with the injunctive order from

16

which the appeal is taken”).

17

Defendants’ Motion addresses issues which are not only involved in the appeal, but are

18

“inextricably bound up” with this Court’s preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court ORDERS

19

the parties to show cause why Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Preliminary Injunction should not

20

be renoted until after the Ninth Circuit enters a ruling or otherwise disposes of the appeal. The

21

parties shall file responses to the Court’s Order to Show Cause within seven (7) days of the date

22

of this Order. Each party’s response shall be limited to no more than five pages.

23
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING MOTION TO STAY - 2

1

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

2

Dated May 30, 2018.

4

A

5

Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

3

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING MOTION TO STAY - 3