Soto Palmer v. Hobbs

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 SUSAN SOTO PALMER, et al., NO. C22-5035RSL 8 Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER DENYING v. EMERGENCY MOTION TO 10 STAY PROCEEDINGS STEVEN HOBBS, et al., 11 Defendants, 12 and 13 JOSE TREVINO, et al., 14 Intervenor-Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on “Intervenor-Defendants’ Emergency Motion to 17 Stay Proceedings.” Dkt. # 232. Three months after the Court entered judgment in this matter, 18 two months after Intervenor-Defendants filed their notice of appeal, and less than one month 19 before alternative remedial maps are due, Intervenor-Defendants filed an emergency motion 20 to stay.1 They essentially argue that the parties should not be required to participate in post- 21 trial remedial activities because the United States Supreme Court (1) may grant the writ of 22 certiorari Intervenor-Defendants filed in this case, (2) may stay consideration of this case 23 pending resolution of a related case, Garcia v. Hobbs, O.T. 2023, No. 23-467, (3) may find 24

25 1 Intervenor-Defendants filed two pre-trial motions to stay that were based on the fact that Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. __, 143 S. Ct. 1487 (2023), was then pending before the United States Supreme Court and 26 might impact the analysis of a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Both motions were denied. 1 that Garcia was wrongly decided and remand to the three-judge panel for further proceedings, 2 (4) may continue to hold this case in abeyance while the three-judge panel determines Garcia 3 on the merits, and (5) may ultimately side with the Intervenor-Defendants in both this case and 4 Garcia. Intervenor-Defendants provide no estimate of how long the requested stay would be 5 in place, nor do they acknowledge that failure to create remedial maps in the next few months 6 will, as plaintiffs proved at trial, deprive plaintiffs of their voting rights in the next election 7 cycle. 8 The Court has discretionary power to stay proceedings, but the party seeking a stay 9 “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward[] if there 10 is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.” 11 Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). Having considered the 12 memoranda of the parties, the irreparable harm that would result from the requested stay, the 13 minimal hardship that will result from moving forward with the remedial process, the failure 14 to show a reasonable probability of success on appeal, the public’s interest in the timely 15 resolution of disputes regarding legislative districts, and the undefined length of the delay in 16 relation to the urgency of the claims presented, Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109- 17 13 (9th Cir. 2005), the Court DENIES the emergency motion to stay. 18 Dated this 27th day of November, 2023. 19

20 Robert S. Lasnik 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26