Babaria v. Blinken

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05521
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 JIGAR BABARIA, et al., Case No. 22-cv-05521-SI

6 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 7 v. STAY PROCEEDINGS

8 ANTONY J. BLINKEN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 23 9 Defendants.

10 11 Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of 12 plaintiffs’ appeal of this Court’s decision denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 13 No. 23. Plaintiffs have not responded to the motion to stay proceedings. For the reasons discussed 14 below, the motion is GRANTED. 15 16 BACKGROUND1 17 At issue in this case is the process by which defendant United States Citizenship and 18 Immigration Services (USCIS) and the United States Department of State (DOS) allocate immigrant 19 visas, which allow the holder to live permanently in the United States. Dkt. No. 14 at 12. Plaintiffs 20 are Indian citizens who currently reside in the United States in non-immigrant status and who have 21 applied for EB-2 immigrant visas. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1–92, 130–134. Each plaintiff had a visa number 22 available at the time of application but no longer has a visa number available due to visa 23 retrogression. Dkt. No. 9 at 7–9. Because the government requires that a visa number be available 24 both at the time of application and at the time of adjudication of the application, plaintiffs’ visa 25 applications have not been adjudicated. Dkt. No. 1 ⁋⁋ 149–51. Plaintiffs assert that defendants’ 26 refusal to adjudicate the applications is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. ⁋⁋ 160– 27 1 175. 2 Plaintiffs brought suit on September 27, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. The next day they moved for a 3 temporary restraining order requiring defendants to adjudicate plaintiffs’ applications. Dkt. No. 9. 4 Defendants opposed. Dkt. No. 14. The Court held a hearing on the motion; at plaintiffs’ request, 5 the Court treated the motion as one for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 17. The Court denied the 6 motion on October 18, 2022, finding that there was little to no likelihood of success on the merits, 7 plaintiffs would not suffer extreme harm absent an injunction, and the public interest and balance 8 of the equities favored defendants. Dkt. No. 19. 9 Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to the Ninth 10 Circuit. See Babaria v. Blinken, No. 22-16700 (9th Cir.). The appeal was consolidated with two 11 other cases, Singh v. Jaddou, No. 22-35702 (9th Cir. filed Sept. 2, 2022), and Datta v. Jaddou, No. 12 22-35773 (9th Cir. filed Sept. 30, 2022). Briefing is nearly complete and oral argument is set for 13 March 2023. See Babaria v. Blinken, No. 22-16700, Dkt. No. 15 (Dec. 21, 2022). Defendants seek 14 a stay pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Dkt. No. 23. 15 16 LEGAL STANDARD 17 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” Lockyear v. 18 Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). When deciding whether to grant a Landis stay, 19 courts must weigh competing interests including “the possible damage which may result from the 20 granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, 21 and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, 22 proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. at 1110 (quoting 23 CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.3d 265, 269 (9th Cir. 1962)). 24 25 DISCUSSION 26 I. Hardship if Stay is Granted 27 A party requesting a stay must “make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being 1 v. North American Co., 200 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). Here, however, plaintiffs have not identified any 2 harm that will come to them if a stay is granted. Courts “are generally unwilling to presume delay 3 is harmful without specific supporting evidence.” Aliphcom v. Fitbit, Inc., 154 F.Supp.3d 933, 938 4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015). A stay of this litigation will not affect USCIS’s ability to process 5 plaintiffs’ applications and will not impact plaintiffs’ current lawful non-immigrant status. See Dkt. 6 No. 1 ¶ 134. Even if plaintiffs prevail on appeal, when and whether their visa applications will be 7 approved is speculative. 8 Further, in this case “any generalized risk of delayed litigation is minimized by the fact that 9 the [appeal] is moving forward on a comparatively expedited schedule.” Id. Oral argument in the 10 appeal is scheduled for March 2023. See Babaria v. Blinken, No. 22-16700, Dkt. No. 15 (Dec. 21, 11 2022). This factor does not weigh against granting a stay. 12 13 II. Hardship if Stay is Denied 14 Defendants argue that they would be harmed by duplication of litigation if a stay is denied. 15 Defendants identify four other cases in the district that raise “significantly overlap[ping]” issues. 16 Dkt. No. 23 at 8. Three of those cases are now stayed. See Barretto v. Jaddou, No. 22-cv-4869- 17 DMR, Dkt. No. 18, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023) (staying case pending appeal); Sandara v. 18 Jaddou, No. 22-cv-4334-DMR, Dkt. No. 24, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023) (staying case pending 19 appeal); Bojja v. Jaddou, No. 22-cv4867-VKD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023) (staying case pursuant to 20 stipulation of parties). “[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a ‘clear 21 case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.” Lockyear v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 22 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005); see Aliphcom v. Fitbit, Inc., 154 F.Supp.3d 933, 938 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23 30, 2015) (finding hardship factor neutral where only hardship was “having to proceed with the 24 lawsuit”). Thus, this factor is neutral. 25 26 III. Judicial Economy and the Orderly Course of Justice 27 Judicial economy heavily favors granting a stay. See Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., 2014 WL 1 relevant.”). The Court must consider “the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 2 || questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (quoting 3 CMAX, 300 F.3d at 268). Many of the issues and legal theories being argued on appeal are identical 4 || to those raised in the case as a whole. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in the appeal “is likely to provide 5 substantial guidance that will impact the court’s decisions in this case and may resolve □□□□□□□□□□□ 6 claims altogether.” Barretto v. Jaddou, No. 22-cv-4869-DMR, Dkt. No. 18, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7 10, 2023). Waiting for the Ninth Circuit’s decision would promote judicial economy by preventing 8 || the parties from litigating the same issues in multiple courts. 9 A stay will also minimize the risk of inconsistent rulings. The relief sought in this case is 10 || nearly identical to that sought in the preliminary injunction that is being appealed. Compare Dkt. 11 No. 1 4 181-88 with Dkt. No. 9 at 20. Should this Court come to a final decision before the appeal 12 || is decided, that decision could be inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning. Because the 5 13 || decision in the appeal will “substantially advance the resolution of the parties’ dispute,” this factor 14 || favors granting a stay. Aliphcom y. Fitbit, Inc., 154 F.Supp.3d 933, 939 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015). 3 15 Because the balancing of hardships is neutral but judicial economy weighs heavily in favor a 16 || of granting a stay, the Court stays this action pending resolution of the appeal of this Court’s order 3 17 || denying a preliminary injunction. 18 19 CONCLUSION 20 Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings is GRANTED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: January 13, 2023 24 □□□ | Ly aw 25 SUSAN ILLSTON January 13, 2023 26 27 28