Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 13

The Honorable James L. Robart

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

JOHN DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13

v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF
SEATTLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

17
18
19
20
21
22

Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00178JLR

v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
PENDING DISPOSITION OF CROSSAPPEALS
(RELATING TO JEWISH FAMILY
SERVICE, NO. 17-1707)
Noted for Consideration:
February 2, 2018

23
24
25
26

DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 13

1

Defendants hereby move the Court to stay district court proceedings in the Jewish Family

2

Service (“JFS”) case (No. 17-1707) pending the Ninth Circuit’s disposition of the pending cross-

3

appeals of the preliminary injunction entered on December 23, 2017.1

4
5
6
7
8

As explained below, the Ninth Circuit’s disposition of these cross-appeals (whether on
mootness grounds or otherwise) will provide this Court guidance as to how to proceed in this
action. Proceeding in the absence of such guidance would be inefficient, waste the resources of
the Court and the parties, and potentially result in rulings that would require subsequent

9

modification or reconsideration in light of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling(s). A stay would offer the

10

added benefit of allowing the parties to account for any forthcoming changes in refugee-related

11

policy following the conclusion of the 90-day Security Advisory Opinion (“SAO”) review period,

12
13
14
15
16
17

which is set to expire on January 22, 2018 (coincidentally, the same day that Defendants’ response
to JFS Plaintiffs’ Complaint is presently due). Moreover, a stay of proceedings in the JFS case
would ensure that this case remains on an even keel with Doe v. Trump (No. 17-178), the case
with which this action is consolidated and in which no further dates and deadlines have been
scheduled.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3), Defendants’ motion to stay is a “Third Friday” motion, and so
Defendants have noted it for consideration on February 2, 2018. However, Defendants’ deadline
to respond to the Jewish Family Service Plaintiffs’ Complaint is January 22, 2018. Should the
Court decline to alter that deadline, Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss on or before
that date. Defendants respectfully suggest that it would be inefficient and wasteful for the parties
to begin another round of dispositive motions practice before the Court rules on this stay motion.
Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court rule on this motion or on the concurrently filed
extension motion (ECF No. 111) in advance of that January 22 deadline, or alternatively hold that
deadline in abeyance pending resolution of these motions.
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 1
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 3 of 13

1

JFS Plaintiffs will not be harmed by a stay while the Ninth Circuit considers the pending

2

cross-appeals, as the relevant provisions of the October 23, 2017, Memorandum to the President

3

(“Joint Memorandum” or “Agency Memo”) are currently enjoined worldwide.2

4
5
6
7
8

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
JFS Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 13, 2017. No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR, ECF
No. 1. Three days later, on November 16, JFS Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction,
challenging two provisions of the Joint Memorandum (the 90-day SAO review period and the

9

following-to-join implementation (“FTJ”) period). ECF No. 42. On November 29, 2017,

10

pursuant to a stipulation, the Court consolidated the JFS case with Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-

11

00178JLR, ECF No. 61, a separate action in which the plaintiffs had moved to preliminarily enjoin

12
13
14
15
16

the Joint Memorandum.3
After both preliminary injunction motions were fully briefed, the Court held a hearing on
December 21, 2017. Two days later, the Court entered an Order granting the motions and
enjoining Defendants from enforcing those provisions of the Joint Memorandum that “suspend

17

the processing of FTJ refugee applications or suspend the admission of FTJ refugees into the

18

United States,” as well as those provisions that “suspend or inhibit . . . the processing of refugee

19

applications or the admission into the United States of refugees from SAO countries.” Doe v.

20
21
22

Trump, Nos. C17-0178JLR & C17-1707JLR, 2017 WL 6551491, at *26 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 23,
2017). The injunction applies worldwide with respect to refugee applicants who have a bona fide

23
24
25
26

2

Defendants contacted JFS Plaintiffs to inquire whether they opposed this motion. In a
January 12, 2018, e-mail, counsel for JFS Plaintiffs stated that they “do not agree to a stay of
Defendants’ obligations under Rules 12 or 26.”
3
From this point forward, all ECF references in this brief are to filings on the Doe docket.
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 2
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 4 of 13

1

relationship with a United States person or entity. Id. Following entry of the December 23 Order,

2

Defendants moved for reconsideration as to the scope of the injunction, ECF No. 93, and for a

3

stay of the injunction pending appeal, ECF No. 95. The Court denied both motions. See ECF

4
5
6
7
8

Nos. 103 & 106.
On January 4, 2018, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction
Order to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 99. A week later, JFS Plaintiffs filed a notice of crossappeal on the preliminary injunction Order, ECF No. 107.

9

Defendants now respectfully submit this Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings

10

Pending Disposition of Cross-Appeals, and concurrently submit a Motion for Extension of Time

11

to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 111). Unlike Defendants’ emergency stay motion,

12
13
14
15
16

which requested a stay of the preliminary injunction itself, this motion simply requests that the
Court exercise its discretion to stay further district court litigation until the Ninth Circuit disposes
of the pending cross-appeals, as this Court did previously in Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141
JLR, 2017 WL 2172020, at *5 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2017) (“Washington II”). Such a modest

17

stay would not prejudice JFS Plaintiffs in light of the preliminary injunction currently in place.

18

Indeed, as a practical matter, JFS Plaintiffs would be in the same position as Doe Plaintiffs in this

19

consolidated action. Moreover, a stay would conserve resources of the Court and the parties while

20
21
22
23

the parties present their claims and defenses to the Ninth Circuit. The Court should therefore
grant Defendants’ motion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

24

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

25

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). That power applies

26
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 3
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 5 of 13

1

“especially in cases of extraordinary public moment,” when “a plaintiff may be required to submit

2

to delay not immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or

3

convenience will thereby be promoted.” Id. at 707.

4
5

The Ninth Circuit has described various factors that should be considered when evaluating
a motion to stay:

6

Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests
which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.
Among these competing interests are the possible damage which may result from
the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being
required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be
expected to result from a stay.

7
8
9
10
11
12

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). As to the last factor, courts frequently
grant stays when resolution of another action may “bear upon the case,” because a stay is most

13

“efficient for [the court’s] own docket and the fairest course for the parties[.]” Leyva v. Certified

14

Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979).

15
16
17
18
19
20

ARGUMENT
I.

A Stay Would Promote Judicial Economy Because the Ninth Circuit’s Disposition of
the December 23, 2017, Preliminary Injunction Order Is Likely to Provide Guidance
on Jurisdictional and/or Other Issues in This Case.
A stay of district court litigation while the parties’ cross-appeals of the preliminary

injunction proceed is the most prudent course at this juncture, as the Ninth Circuit’s disposition

21

of the cross-appeals should provide useful guidance to this Court. The disposition of the appeals

22

could potentially shed light on questions such as the justiciability of Plaintiffs’ claims, the

23

viability of their statutory challenges, and, perhaps, the availability of their constitutional claims

24
25

(particularly in light of Supreme Court stay orders in the litigation over Presidential Proclamation
No. 9645).

26
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 4
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 6 of 13

1

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit will likely confront the question whether the cross-appeals

2

should be resolved on grounds of mootness. As the Government acknowledged at the December

3

21, 2017, hearing, the 90-day SAO review period is set to conclude on January 22, 2018, and the

4
5
6
7
8

following-to-join implementation period is expected to conclude at almost all locations by
February 1, 2018. Upon the conclusion of these two endeavors, Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Joint
Memorandum will become moot. See Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 377 (2017) (mem.); Trump v.
IRAP, 138 S. Ct. 353 (2017) (mem.). It makes little sense to proceed with litigation regarding a

9

policy that will soon be moot. Should a new refugee-related policy take effect in the future, and

10

should Plaintiffs desire to challenge that new policy, Plaintiffs would need to amend their

11

Complaint to challenge that policy. This Court could then determine how best to proceed at that

12
13
14
15
16

time.
This Court has repeatedly recognized the value of a stay pending appeal. Specifically, in
Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL 2172020, at *5 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2017),
this Court stayed proceedings over plaintiffs’ opposition while defendants appealed to the Ninth

17

Circuit a preliminary injunction issued in Hawaii v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 (D. Haw.), against

18

enforcement of Executive Order No. 13,780 (“EO-2”). In doing so, this Court recognized that

19

awaiting the Ninth Circuit’s decision would “promote the orderly course of justice and judicial

20
21
22
23

economy,” that Defendants would “face hardship or inequity” without a stay because of the
plaintiffs’ discovery demands and the unique nature of the case involving the Chief Executive,
and that the plaintiffs could not show harm justifying denial of a stay. See id. at *5.

24

Before entering that stay, this Court similarly sua sponte stayed consideration of the

25

Washington plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order against enforcement of EO-2 in

26
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 5
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 7 of 13

1

light of the District of Hawaii’s decision. Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL

2

1050354 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017) (“Washington I”). This Court concluded that because

3

“many of the legal arguments Plaintiffs raise[d] in their TRO motion [were] likely to be before

4
5
6
7
8

the Ninth Circuit in Hawaii,” it would “waste judicial resources to decide these issues . . . when
guidance from the Ninth Circuit is likely to be available soon.” Id. at 5. The Court found that
“[t]he more efficient course” was to “wait for a decision from the Ninth Circuit,” which might
“resolve the primary issues.” Id. The Court could then “resolve any remaining issues in this case

9

with the benefit of the Ninth Circuit’s analysis.” Id. And in Doe. v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178

10

(JLR), the case with which this action is consolidated, this Court entered a stipulated order staying

11

proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump. ECF Nos.

12
13
14
15
16

34, 38.
Indeed, this Court is not alone in recognizing the appropriateness of a stay pending appeal
in this context. After this Court entered a nationwide injunction in Washington v. Trump, No.
C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 15, 2017), the U.S. District Court for the

17

District of Hawaii stayed all deadlines in that parallel case pending resolution of the Government’s

18

appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The district court determined that “granting the stay while the

19

nationwide injunction continue[d] in place pending the outcome of appellate proceedings would

20
21
22
23
24

facilitate the orderly course of justice.” Hawaii v. Trump, 233 F. Supp. 3d 850, 855 (D. Haw.
2017). The court noted in particular that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, as well as any subsequent
appellate pronouncement, would “likely be dispositive of, or at least dispositive of many of the
issued presented by,” the motion for a temporary restraining order then pending in that court. Id.

25
26
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 6
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 8 of 13

1

The same reasoning supports staying all district court proceedings in this case (including

2

Defendants’ upcoming deadline to respond to JFS Plaintiffs’ Complaint and any discovery). The

3

Ninth Circuit’s disposition of the cross-appeals could have “significant relevance to—and

4
5
6
7
8

potentially control”—this Court’s analysis of forthcoming issues in this case. See Washington I,
2017 WL 1050354, at *5.
A stay would be particularly appropriate because JFS Plaintiffs have signaled, as recently
as January 12, 2018, that they believe discovery must proceed without delay. The Government

9

strongly disputes JFS Plaintiffs’ view that they are entitled discovery. Discovery generally is not

10

permitted for APA claims. McCrary v. Gutierrez, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1041 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

11

And, as the Government has argued, Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are governed by Kleindienst

12
13
14
15
16

v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), which does not permit looking beyond the face of a decision to
exclude aliens abroad. If the Ninth Circuit finds Plaintiffs’ challenges to the Joint Memorandum
moot, then Plaintiffs would not be entitled to discovery. And if that court reaches the merits of
Plaintiffs’ claims, it may address the proper standard for resolving those claims and, in doing so,

17

may signal whether Plaintiffs are entitled to any discovery or what such discovery might entail.

18

This Court has already recognized that such circumstances favor a stay pending appeal. See

19

Washington II, 2017 WL 2172020, at *2 (explaining that “[a]lthough the Ninth Circuit is not

20
21
22
23

considering discovery issues on appeal, it is likely to decide legal issues that will impact the
court’s resolution of the parties’ discovery disputes here by clarifying the applicable law or
relevant landscape of facts that need to be developed” (citations and internal quotation marks

24

omitted)); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he prospect

25

of narrowing the factual and legal issues” counsels in favor of granting a stay.); Fed. Home Loan

26
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 7
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 9 of 13

1

Mortg. Corp. v. Kama, No. 14-00137 ACK-KSC, 2016 WL 922780, at *9 (D. Haw. Mar. 9, 2016)

2

(granting stay, including of discovery, where appeal of related cases would “help to clarify the

3

issues and questions of law going forward”). Awaiting any such guidance may conserve resources

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

in the end. For instance, if this Court were to find that discovery is appropriate, but the Ninth
Circuit were to then hold that Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Joint Memorandum has been rendered
moot by subsequent events, the parties would have wasted resources on discovery. Relatedly, if
this Court were to determine that some discovery is appropriate and some is not, and the Ninth
Circuit’s subsequent decision conflicts with whatever line the Court drew, the Court would need
to reconcile its past decisions.
Discovery aside, the Ninth Circuit’s guidance could also prove useful in other aspects of
this case. If the case is not stayed, Defendants anticipate that they will move for dismissal under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In doing so, Defendants expect that they
will raise many of the defenses and arguments they presented at the preliminary injunction stage.
The Ninth Circuit has not yet considered those arguments in connection with the Joint

17

Memorandum. Should the Ninth Circuit reach these issues, its analysis would provide this Court

18

with guidance as to how to proceed. A stay is therefore warranted because “the Ninth Circuit’s

19

decision will also likely help the court in resolving Defendants’ motion to dismiss,” Washington

20
21
22
23
24

II, 2017 WL 2172020, at *3, whether on mootness grounds or on other jurisdictional or merits
bases. It would waste this Court’s time and the parties’ resources to conduct parallel briefing with
that in the Ninth Circuit about policies that are currently enjoined. Moreover, another round of
dispositive motions may also lead, upon a subsequent Ninth Circuit decision, to “inconsistent

25
26
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 8
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 10 of 13

1

rulings” between the two courts that will need to be “disentangle[d].” Washington I, 2017 WL

2

1050354, at *5.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

In short, the Ninth Circuit’s decision could change “the applicable law or the relevant
landscape of facts that need to be developed” in such a way that this Court’s intervening rulings
will be nullified or will need to be made anew. Id. at *5; see Canal Props. LLC v. Alliant Tax
Credit V, Inc., No. C04-03201 SI, 2005 WL 1562807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2005). A stay,
therefore, is most “efficient for [the Court’s] own docket and the fairest course for the parties[.]”
Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863.
II.

A Stay Would Keep the JFS and Doe Cases on an Even Trajectory.

11

In Doe, the parties have agreed that Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Third Amended

12

Complaint is extended until the parties confer at a later date upon a schedule. See ECF No. 41.

13
14
15
16

The Court appeared to recognize this state of affairs at the December 21, 2017, hearing, when it
rescinded a text order that had imposed a December 22 deadline for the parties “to respond to the
Order Regarding Initial Disclosures and Joint Status Report.” See ECF No. 87. Given the close

17

identity between the claims at issue in Doe and JFS, it makes no sense for litigation in one case

18

to proceed while litigation in the other case remains in abeyance. And since both sets of plaintiffs

19

benefit from the preliminary injunction, there is nothing to be gained from further proceedings in

20
21
22
23
24

either case, at least until the Ninth Circuit disposes of the pending cross-appeals.
III.

JFS Plaintiffs Will Not Be Harmed by a Stay of District Court Proceedings.
In contrast to the wasteful drain on resources that will occur if this case proceeds before

the cross-appeals are resolved, JFS Plaintiffs will not suffer any harm from a stay. The relevant

25

provisions of the Joint Memorandum are currently enjoined worldwide. Once the cross-appeals

26

are resolved (or the landscape otherwise shifts due to changes in refugee-related policy), JFS
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 9
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 11 of 13

1

Plaintiffs could request whatever further proceedings, if any, they deem appropriate at that time.

2

Under these circumstances, JFS Plaintiffs cannot plausibly claim they will suffer harm from a

3

stay. And even if they could conceive of some harm, it would not outweigh the harm to

4
5
6
7
8

Defendants from denying a stay. See Washington II, 2017 WL 2172020, at *4 (“In the context of
this case, the ‘high respect’ owed to the Executive warrants a stay to protect Defendants from the
burden of resource intensive discovery while the Ninth Circuit addresses issues that may inform
the appropriateness, scope, and necessity of that discovery.”).
CONCLUSION

9
10
11

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Defendants’ Motion Stay District Court
Proceedings Pending Disposition of Cross-Appeals.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DATED: January 16, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel
JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
Director, Federal Programs Branch
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Joseph C. Dugan
MICHELLE R. BENNETT
DANIEL SCHWEI
KEVIN SNELL
JOSEPH C. DUGAN
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Email: joseph.dugan@usdoj.gov

DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 10
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 12 of 13

1

Attorneys for Defendants

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 11
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110 Filed 01/16/18 Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

I certify that on January 16, 2018, a copy of the foregoing document was electronically

3

filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such

4

filing to all counsel of record.

5
6
7

DATED this 16th day of January, 2018.
/s/ Joseph C. Dugan
JOSEPH C. DUGAN

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DEFS.’ MOT TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 12
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110-1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 2

The Honorable James L. Robart

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

JOHN DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13

v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF
SEATTLE, et al.,

19
20

Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR

Plaintiffs,

17
18

Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00178JLR

v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
PENDING DISPOSITION OF CROSSAPPEALS

21
22
23
24
25
26

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 110-1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 2

1
2

Upon review of Defendants’ Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending
Disposition of Cross-Appeals, and for good cause shown, it is ORDERED:

3

1. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED;

4

2. Further proceedings in the Jewish Family Service case (Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-

5
6
7
8
9
10

1707JLR) are STAYED pending further Order of the Court; and
3. Within fourteen days following disposition of the cross-appeals now pending before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Nos. 18-35015 & 18-35026), the
parties SHALL FILE a Joint Status Report.
Dated this ___ day of ____________________.

11
12

Presented by:

13

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

___________________________________
Hon. James L. Robart
United States District Judge

JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
Director, Federal Programs Branch
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Joseph C. Dugan
MICHELLE R. BENNETT
DANIEL SCHWEI
KEVIN SNELL
JOSEPH C. DUGAN
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Email: joseph.dugan@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 1
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259