Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 49 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 1046

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
LINDA SARSOUR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
President of the United States,
et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00120(AJT/IDD)

JOINT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to this Court’s inherent authority, the parties, through the undersigned counsel,
hereby respectfully submit this joint motion to stay the proceedings in the above-captioned
action. The grounds for this motion are as follows:
1.

After this Court concluded that their Amended Complaint was moot, see ECF No.

47, plaintiffs filed a (Second) Amended Complaint on December 26, 2017, that challenges
Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting
Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats
(“Proclamation”), see ECF No. 48.
2.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), defendants’ response to the

Second Amended Complaint is currently due on January 9, 2018.
3.

In other litigation challenging the Proclamation, two district courts entered

nationwide preliminary injunctions barring the enforcement of some of the Proclamation’s entry
restrictions. In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland enjoined implementation of Section 2 of the Proclamation,

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 49 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 1047

except as to nationals of Venezuela or North Korea or persons without a credible claim of a bona
fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. See Int’l Refugee Assistance
Project (IRAP) v. Trump, 2017 WL 4674314 (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2017), appeal docketed, Nos. 172231(L), 17-2232, 17-2233, 17-2240 (4th Cir. Oct. 20, 2017). An appeal in that action is
presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the en
banc court heard argument on December 8, 2017. In Hawaii v. Trump, the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii enjoined implementation of Section 2 of the Proclamation,
except as to nationals of Venezuela or North Korea. See Preliminary Injunction, Hawaii v.
Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, ECF No. 390 (D. Haw. Oct. 20, 2017), aff’d in part,
vacated in part, 2017 WL 6554184 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2017); see also Hawaii v. Trump, 2017
WL 4639560 (D. Haw. Oct. 17, 2017). The government also appealed in that case and, on
December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction, except
as to foreign nationals without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity
in the United States. See Hawaii, 2017 WL 6554184. The Supreme Court has stayed the
preliminary injunctions entered in both cases pending disposition of the government’s appeals in
the courts of appeals and any subsequent proceedings in the Supreme Court. See Trump v. IRAP,
No. 17A560, 2017 WL 5987435 (U.S. Dec. 4, 2017); Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17A550, 2017 WL
5987406 (U.S. Dec. 4, 2017).
4.

The parties agree that further proceedings in this Court are likely to be shaped by

resolution of the appeals in IRAP and Hawaii. They therefore respectfully request that the Court
stay further proceedings in this case pending final disposition of all appellate proceedings in
IRAP and Hawaii.

-2-

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 49 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 1048

5.

“A district court has the ‘inherent power’ to stay a pending action to ensure both

the ‘efficient management of [its] docket[],’ as well as ‘economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.’” Hawley v. Johnson & Johnson, 2011 WL 7946243, at *1 (E.D. Va.
Apr. 29, 2011) (quoting Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983);
Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). When considering a motion to stay, a court
should consider three factors: “(1) the interests of judicial economy; (2) hardship and equity to
the moving party if the action is not stayed; [and] (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving
party.” Sehler v. Prospect Mortg., LLC, 2013 WL 5184216, at *2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hawley, 2011 WL 7946243, at *1 (“When
determining whether a stay is appropriate, a district court must ‘weigh competing interests and
maintain an even balance.’” (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255)). In general, the decision of
whether to stay a case “lies within the sound discretion” of the court. See Fisher v. United
States, 2013 WL 6074076, at *4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2013).
6.

Here, all of the factors articulated in Sehler weigh in favor of a stay. Because this

motion is submitted jointly by the parties, there is no potential prejudice to either party if the stay
is granted. In the interests of judicial economy, a stay would avoid the unnecessary and
burdensome expenditure of the parties’ and this Court’s resources that would be required to
adjudicate both the jurisdictional and merits issues presented in this action. Moreover, no
hearings have been scheduled in this action, and there are no pending deadlines (other than
defendants’ response to the Second Amended Complaint); therefore, a stay would not affect any
current proceedings in this Court.
7.

This joint motion is being filed in lieu of a motion to dismiss (or a responsive

pleading), which presently is due on January 9, 2018. Should this Court deny the motion,

-3-

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 49 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 1049

defendants respectfully request that they be permitted to file their response to the Second
Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Court entering such a denial.
8.

A proposed Order is provided for the convenience of the Court.
Respectfully submitted,

___________/s/___________ ______
Gadeir Abbas
453 New Jersey Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Tel: 720.251.0425
Fax: 202.488.0833
Email: gabbas@cair.com
licensed in VA; not in DC
practice limited to federal matters

_________/s/_________________
Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Tel: (703) 299-3891
Fax: (703) 299-3983
Email: dennis.barghaan@usdoj.gov

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

Date: January 5, 2018

Date: January 5, 2018

-4-

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 49-1 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID# 1050

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
LINDA SARSOUR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
President of the United States,
et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00120(AJT/IDD)

ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings, it is hereby
ORDERED that the joint motion is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter are hereby stayed under further order of the
Court.

Date: _______

__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE