Protect Our Girls v. Cegavske

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 9, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00515
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 PROTECT OUR GIRLS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00515-MMD-WGC a Committee for Political Action (PAC) 7 Advocating Passage, et al., ORDER

8 Plaintiffs, v. 9 BARBARA G. CEGAVSKE, 10 in her official capacity as Nevada Secretary of State, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiffs Protect Our Girls, a Committee for Political Action (PAC) Advocating 14 Passage, and Melissa Clement, sued Defendants Barbara G Cegavske, Nevada’s 15 Secretary of State, and Nevada county election officials,1 seeking an extension of time to 16 submit signatures in support of Statewide Statutory Initiative Petition S-04-2020 because 17 of the COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 1.) This order addresses two preliminary issues 18 and directs further briefing. 19 First, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a joint motion (ECF No. 10) for the Court to 20 approve a consent decree granting Plaintiffs the deadline extension they seek in this case 21 (ECF No. 10-1).2 However, the joint motion lists Fair Maps Nevada, Sondra Cosgrove, 22 Douglas Goodman, and Robert MacDonald as the plaintiffs of this case, and refers to 23 24 1Elko County Clerk Kristina Jakeman, Lander County Clerk Sadie Sullivan, 25 Pershing County Clerk-Treasurer Lacey Donaldson, Storey County Clerk-Treasurer Vanessa Stevens, White Pine County Clerk Nichole Baldwin, Nye County Clerk Sandra 26 Merlino, Humbolt County Clerk Tammie Rae Spero, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer Kathy Lewis, Churchill County Clerk-Treasurer Linda Rothery, Esmerelda County Clerk- 27 Treasurer Lacinda Elgan, Lincoln County Clerk Lisa C. Lloyd, Eureka County Clerk Lisa Hoehna, and Lyon County Clerk-Treasurer Nikki Bryan. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) 28 2Four parties have also filed two motions to intervene in these proceedings. (ECF 2 Cegavske, Case No. 3:20-cv-00271-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. Filed May 6, 2020). (ECF No. 3 10 at 2.) It is therefore unclear the joint motion reflects agreement between the parties to 4 this case. The Court will deny the joint motion without prejudice to refiling as appropriately 5 updated. 6 Second, Proposed Intervenors assert that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, 7 depriving the Court of jurisdiction over this case, and requiring the Court dismiss it. (ECF 8 Nos. 8-3, 11 at 7.) Proposed Intervenors also make the related argument this lack of 9 standing deprives the Court of jurisdiction to approve the proposed consent decree. (ECF 10 No. 11 at 7.) “Subject matter jurisdiction can never be forfeited or waived, and federal 11 courts have a continuing, independent obligation to determine whether subject matter 12 jurisdiction exists.” Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013). The 13 Court must therefore verify Plaintiffs have standing before the Court could approve any 14 consent decree purporting to bind Defendants. 15 It is therefore ordered that the joint motion to approve the consent decree (ECF 16 No. 10) is denied without prejudice, and with leave to file a corrected motion that corrects 17 the deficiencies identified above. 18 It is further ordered that, should the parties file a corrected joint motion to approve 19 the consent decree, they must file either a joint brief, or separate briefs, addressing the 20 related questions of whether Plaintiffs have standing to prosecute this case, and whether 21 the Court would have jurisdiction to approve a revised consent decree. 22 It is further ordered the Court will determine whether additional briefing is 23 necessary upon review of Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ briefing on standing and jurisdiction. 24 DATED THIS 9th day of October 2020.

26 MIRANDA M. DU 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28