Karnoski et al v. Trump et al

Filing 98

ORDER denying Defendants' 89 Motion for Stay of Proceedings signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 98 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

RYAN KARNOSKI, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

Case No. C17-01297MJP
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS

14
15

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings. Dkt. #89.

18

Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ Motion. Dkts. #91 and #93. For the reasons discussed herein,

19
20

Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

21

District Courts have discretionary power to stay proceedings in their own court. Lockyer

22

v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S.

23

248, 254 (1936)). When a stay is proposed, district courts must weigh the competing interests

24
25
26

affected by the grant or refusal of a stay. Id. at 1110 (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265,
268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The competing interests considered in this analysis include: (1) “the

27

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay”; (2) “the hardship or inequity

28

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward”; and (3) “the orderly course of justice

ORDER - 1

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 98 Filed 11/20/17 Page 2 of 3

1

measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which

2

could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. Additionally, if there is “even a fair possibility”

3

that a stay will “work damage to someone else,” the party seeking the stay “must make out a

4

clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.

5
6
7

“Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a
litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Id.

8

Defendants fail to demonstrate a stay is warranted. Defendants contend that because the

9

Memorandum Opinion and Order issued in Doe 1, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 17-1597

10

(CKK), 2017 WL 4873042 (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 2017), preliminarily enjoins the government from

11
12

enforcing two sections of the Presidential memorandum at issue here, see 82 FR 41319, (the

13

“Presidential Memorandum”), the Court should stay the proceedings. Dkt. #89 at 2. Defendants

14

reason that while they disagree with the Doe 1 court’s preliminary injunction, and while they are

15

considering whether to appeal that court’s Order, they are nonetheless complying with the Order

16

and a stay is warranted. Id. The Court is not convinced.

17
18

Here, there is a fair possibility that granting Defendants’ stay will harm Plaintiffs. The

19

Order in Doe 1 did not enjoin Section 2(b) of the Presidential Memorandum; Section 2(b) directs

20

the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to “halt” all use of their respective

21

departments’ resources to fund sex-reassignment surgical procedures, “except to the extent

22
23
24

necessary to protect the health of an individual who has already begun a course of treatment to
reassign his or her sex.” See 2017 WL 4873042, at *2. Because this directive has not been

25

enjoined, there is a fair possibility that at least some of the named Plaintiffs (including Plaintiff

26

Jane Doe) will be harmed if that directive goes into effect. Additionally, granting Defendants’

27

requested stay “deprive[s] Plaintiffs of an injunction supported by interests not present in Doe

28

ORDER - 2

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 98 Filed 11/20/17 Page 3 of 3

1

[I].” Dkt. #91 at 5. This is especially true where the State of Washington asserts interests

2

different from private plaintiffs, and where Plaintiffs raise claims not considered by the District

3

Court for the District of Columbia. See id.

4
5
6

Because there is a fair possibility of harm to Plaintiffs, Defendants “must make out a clear
case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.

7

Defendants do not identify a single hardship or inequity they will face if litigation proceeds, see

8

Dkt. #89 at 2–5. Instead, Defendants merely contend the “orderly administration of justice will

9

be furthered,” if the Court grants its stay. Appeals to the orderly administration of justice, without

10

showing any hardship or inequity Defendants will face, fail to persuade the Court that a stay is

11
12

warranted. This is especially true where contested issues implicate the public interest; in these

13

circumstances, it is important for trial judges to develop the full record for review. Consequently,

14

Defendant’s request for a stay of proceedings (Dkt. #89) is DENIED.

15
16

DATED this 20th day of November, 2017.

17
18
19
20

A

21
22

Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER - 3