Doe v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00178 JLR. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180220l99
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION AND SCHEDULING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . On November 21, 2017, the Court directed the parties in Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR (W.D. Wash.), and Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (W.D. Wash.), to show cause why the actions should not be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The parties have met and conferred and now agree and stipulate
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION AND SCHEDULING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . On November 21, 2017, the Court directed the parties in Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR (W.D. Wash.), and Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (W.D. Wash.), to show cause why the actions should not be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The parties have met and conferred and now agree and stipulate ..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION AND SCHEDULING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
On November 21, 2017, the Court directed the parties in Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR (W.D. Wash.), and Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (W.D. Wash.), to show cause why the actions should not be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The parties have met and conferred and now agree and stipulate to the following:
1. The cases may be consolidated for further proceedings, provided that (1) the actions retain their separate character, (2) parties to one action will not be designated as parties to the other, (3) parties may continue to file separate briefing so long as it is not duplicative, and (4) consolidation will not affect the page limits to which parties are entitled under the Local Rules, except as provided in this stipulation or by subsequent Court order.1 Because Doe was filed first, it shall be the lead case for all future filings.
2. The preliminary injunction hearing in Doe presently scheduled for December 11, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. PST should be vacated, and a new consolidated hearing to address the issues raised in the preliminary injunction motions filed in both Doe and Jewish Family Service should be set at a date and time convenient for the Court following the completion of briefing in Jewish Family Service. The parties respectfully propose a consolidated hearing during the week of December 18, 2017, preferably during the early part of that week in view of the approaching federal holidays.
3. Each set of Plaintiffs may file a short notice joining the motion of the other Plaintiffs and addressing issues raised in the opening preliminary injunction brief filed by the other set of Plaintiffs, provided that Plaintiffs will not use these short notices to raise new claims or merits arguments not previously raised by one set or the other. Thus, the parties agree that, on or before November 29, 2017, the Doe Plaintiffs and the Jewish Family Service Plaintiffs may each file a notice no longer than three pages addressing relevant issues raised in the other set of Plaintiffs' opening brief. The Government may respond to these supplemental arguments in its response in opposition to the Jewish Family Service Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, and may file an over-length brief in order to do so. Specifically, the Government's response brief in Jewish Family Service may exceed the twenty-four pages allowable under the Local Rules by five pages.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the above stipulation and the record in this matter, the Court approves the stipulation and all dates, page limits, and deadlines specified therein. The December 11, 2017, hearing in Doe is VACATED, and a hearing to address issues raised in both Jewish Family Service and Doe is set for December 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m..
IT IS SO ORDERED
FootNotes
1. Plaintiffs believe that JFS and Doe should maintain their separate characters in light of the overlapping but differing legal claims and classes (e.g., the JFS Plaintiffs' complaint seeks nationwide relief for refugees whereas the Doe Plaintiffs' complaint focuses on Washington State and challenges additional policies). See 9A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure Civ. § 2382 (3d ed. 2017) (describing consolidation that "does not merge the suits into a single action"). As consolidated but not merged actions, parties in JFS and Doe would maintain separate pleadings, but Plaintiffs in each action would endeavor to avoid duplication wherever possible.
Source: Leagle
