Soto Palmer v. Hobbs

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 SUSAN SOTO PALMER, et al., NO. C22-5035RSL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING STAY

11 v.

12 STEVEN HOBBS, et al.,

13 Defendants,

14 and

15 JOSE TREVINO, et al.,

16 Intervenor-Defendants.

17 18 This matter comes before the Court on “Intervenor-Defendants’ Motion to Stay 19 Proceedings.” Dkt. # 97. Intervenors seek to stay all proceedings in the above-captioned matter 20 pending resolution of Merrill v. Milligan, No. 21-1086 (U.S.), a case involving a vote dilution 21 claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Following the grant of certiorari in Merrill, 22 the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction order requiring Louisiana to create a 23 remedial redistricting plan. Ardoin v. Robinson, 142 S. Ct. 2892 (2022). The Middle District 24 of Louisiana cited to Robinson when staying another Section 2 case, Nairne v. Ardoin, No. 22- 25 CV-0178-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La. Aug. 30, 2022). However, a three-judge panel in the Western 26 District of Texas declined to issue a stay based on Merrill, League of United Latin American 1 Citizens v. Abbott, No. EP-21-CV-0259-DCG-JES-JVB (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2022), a decision 2 that was affirmed on appeal, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott, No. 22- 3 50407 (5th Cir. May 20, 2022). Merrill was argued before the Supreme Court on October 4, 4 2022. Plaintiffs and the State of Washington oppose the motion to stay, with defendant Hobbs 5 taking no position. 6 While the Court has discretionary power to stay proceedings, the party seeking a stay 7 “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward[] if there 8 is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else. 9 Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a 10 litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Landis v. North 11 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). Having considered the memoranda of the parties 12 and the factors discussed in Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109-13 (9th Cir. 2005),1 13 the Court DENIES the motion to stay without prejudice to its being refiled after discovery has 14 been completed. 15 Dated this 26th day of October, 2022. 16

18 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 1 Among the factors and interests that must be weighed when determining whether to grant or deny a stay 24 are (a) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, (b) any hardship or inequity which may result from moving forward other than simply having to defend the pending suit, (c) the prospect of narrowing the 25 factual or legal issues through the other proceeding, (d) whether a stay will simplify or complicate discovery, (e) the court’s interest in the uniform treatment of like suits, (f) the prompt and efficient determination of pending 26 cases, and (g) whether the other proceedings will conclude within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court. Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110-12.