Fitzgerald et al v. Alcorn et al, No. 5:2017cv00016 - Document 101 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 9/24/18. (kld)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fitzgerald et al v. Alcorn et al Doc. 101 IN THE IJNITED STATESDISTRICT COUV Rrsoryj: r,,(. . m. FORTHEHWES TERNDISTRICTOFWRGINV ATVFlujEd/,vl ARRISON BU RG D IW SIO N SEP 2j 2gjg AN N E T.FITZGE R AT. D ,eta1., JULIA DU J ; Plaintiffsy Case Ako.5:17-cv-16 ctanx cuEax V. By: M ichaelF.U tbansld JAM ESB.ALCORN,eta1., ChiefUnited StatesDistdctJudge D efendants. M EM O M N DU M O PIN IO N Thism atterisbefoze thecourton Plaindff6+ CongressionalD isttictRepublican Committee's(thedfcomnaittee7')M otion to VacateStay.ECF No.84.Both pnl-tieshaveflled m em orandaof1aw in svpportofthei. rrespecdve positions,and thecourtheard arplm enton July 3,2018.ECF Nos.85-88,99-100.Forthereasonsstated belok,thecolzrtwillgrantthe Com m ittee's'm odon. OnJanuary19,2018,thecout'tpermanentlyenjoinedtheVitginiaDeparM entof 1 Eleçdonsand m em bersoftheVirginiaBoard ofElecdonsfrom enforcing the Incumbent 1t. rotectionAct,Va.CodeAnn.j24.2-5097)(thetTAct''),afterûndingitfacially . unconsdtutionalon FirstAm endm entgrounds.ECF N o.57-58.The cotutlaterstayed the permanentinjuncdon on February5,2018pendingreview bytheFoutthCitcuit.ECF Nos. 71-72.The cotzrtheld thata stay would naiégate theEkelihood ofconfusion duting the nonnination processforthe2018 elecdon given thatpartychairpersonswere scheduled to reportm ethodsfor selecting candidateswithin a m atterofdays.ECF N o.72,at3-4. Case 5:17-cv-00016-MFU-JCH Document 101 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 8 Pageid#: 3747 Dockets.Justia.com The Com m ittee now requeststhatthe stay bevacated putsuantto FederalRule of CivilProcedlzre62(c)?contendingitisunnecessarybecausethenotnination period forthe 2018 congzessionalelectionshaspassed and thereisno longeralikelihood ofconfusion in the electoralprocess.ECF N o.84,at4-5.The Com m ittee also atguesthatthe appeal probably * 1notberesolved priorto the N ovem ber2019 elecdons'nominadon period, wltich nm sfrom Febzuary 6-26,2019,because the Fourth Citcuitordered briefing to begin on October22,2018 and oralargum entisexpected.ECF N o.99,at1-29see also Fitz erald etal.v.Alcorn etal.,No.18-1111,BriehngOrder-Civil(4thCir.September11,2018).In response,defendantsprim arily contend thatlifting the stayw ould beinappropriatebecause nqthing haschanged factually orlegally since the courtissued the stay,exceptthattheacdon m ay now bem oot.ECF N o.86,at2-4.D efendantsalso note thatthe Com m itteewillbe unaffected by thisupcolning nomination period,asitonlypardcipatesin federalelecdons and the N ovember2019 elecdonsate forstateofhces.ECF N o.100,at1-2. ThecourthndsthatithastheauthoritytovacateyhestaypursuanttoRule62(c),and thatdoing so serv' esthe' publicinterest. 1. The partiesdisagree asto the appropriate standard to applyin evaluadng thism oéon tovacatethestay.TheCommitteeadvocatesforRule62(c),wllich states:fA' vhilean appeal ispending from aninterlocutoryorderorhnaljudgmentthatgrants,clissolves,ordeniesan injunctiog,thecouttmay suspend,modify,restore,orgzantaninjunction on tet'msforbond orotherterms thatsecure the opposing party'srights.''The Com m itteepointsto thiscourt's petmanentinjuncéon orderin support,wlzich retnined fjutisdicdon ovezthismattezfoz 2 Case 5:17-cv-00016-MFU-JCH Document 101 Filed 09/24/18 Page 2 of 8 Pageid#: 3748 purposesofenforcementoftheinjunction....''ECF No.58.Byconttast,defendantsargue thatthe Com naittee m ustshow fcthata signilk antchangein factsorlaw warrantsrevision or dissoluéonoftheinjuncéon''becausetheComrnitteewaitedtomovetovacatethestay, thereby foreclosing m otionsto alterthe stayunderRule59 orappealthe stay underFederal RuleofAppellatePtocedute4(a).SeeSh v.W eston,233F.3d1166,1170(9thCit.2000)). D efendantspointto casesbeforetheSuprem e CourtoftheU nited Statesand theU .S.Court ofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitreqlniringaffpartyseekingtelieffrom aninjunctionor consentdecree...(to)shpw asignificantchangeeitherin factazalconditionsotin lam '' Agostitliv.Felton,521U.S.203,215(1997)(quotingRufov.lnmatesofSuffolkCty.Jail, 502U.S.367,387(1992)(tinteznalquotationmarksomittedl);seealsoSe.Alaska Conservation Councilv.U.S.Arm Co sofEn 'rs,472 F.3d 1097,1101 (9th Cir.2006). The courtagreeswith the Com mittee thatithasthe powerto vacatethe stay underits . jurisdicdontoenforcetheinjuncdonandRule62(c)'sgtantofauthorityto suspendthe injunctionwithoutadfsigniûcantchangeoffactsorlam ''Sh ,233F.3d at1170.The decisionsrelied upon by defendantsreqlpidng ahigherstandard are inapposite.A osdno soughtrelieffrom apeymanentinjunction,ratherthanaddressingtheappropziatenessofa temporarystayofapermanentinjuncdon.See521U.S.at215 (seeldngreliefunderRule 60q$(5))9seealso12Moore'sFederalPracdce-Civilj62.06(2018)tftWl1ileRule62(c)gives thedistdctcolzrttheauthorityto suspend,modify,zestore,orgrantaninjuncéon pending appeal,itdoesnotconferupon thecourtthepowerto dissolvean injunction.').Thepardes in SoutheastA laskaConservation Counciland Sh soughtto.vacatethedistrictcourt's injunction,ratherthan astay oftheinjuncdon,pending appealin theNinth Circuit.SeeSe. Case 5:17-cv-00016-MFU-JCH Document 101 Filed 09/24/18 Page 3 of 8 Pageid#: 3749 AlaskaConservaéonCouncil,472F.3dat1101(f<Tojuséfyvacadngtheinjuncdon (other than on thefailureto complywithPurcell'sspecifkityzequizement),CoeurAlaskamust demonstratethatfactshavechanged sufficientlysincethecourtissueditsorder.');Shar , 233F.3dat1170(<<A partyseeldngmodifkadonordissoludon ofaninjuncdonbearsthe burden ofestablishing thatasignificantchange in factsot1aw wattantsrevision or dissoluéonoftheinjuncdon.');seealsoNelsonv.Collins,700F.2d 145,146-47(4thCit. 1983)(<fTheinjuncdon'previouslygrantedbythedisttictcourtisacontinuingdecteesubject to m odifk ation.Itcan bem odiûed ifthedistrictcourtfindsthatchangesoffactorlaw justifyitsadaptation to alteted circumstances.').Here,theCommitteeisnotseeldng to modifythepermanentinjuncéon,onlytoimplementtheinjuncdon. The Com m ittee'srequestto vacatethe stay therefore isin linewith the pum osesof Rule62(c),underwllich Tfgtlhedisttictcourtretainsjutisdicdon dtuing thependencyofan appealto actto preservethe stat' usquo.''N at.Res.D ef.Council,Inc.v.Sw.M arine Inc.,242 F.3d1163,1166(9thCir.2001)(citingNewtonv.ConsolidatedGasCo.,258U.S.165,177 (1922))9gf. aOneSto Delilnc.v.Franco'sInc.,No.CIV.A.93-090-1-1,1994K 147763,at *1(W.D.Va.Mar.28,1994)(tfA stayoftheinjuncdonisadifferentmatter,however,for Rule62(c)specificallyauthorizesthesuspensionofaninjuncdonpendingappeal,anda couzt'sreftzsalto takeappropdate acdon undertheRtzle simply because anoéceofappeal hasbeen filedwouldrendettheRuleapracdcalnullity.''). 4 Case 5:17-cv-00016-MFU-JCH Document 101 Filed 09/24/18 Page 4 of 8 Pageid#: 3750 I1- Thecokuthndsthatthestayoftheinjuncéon shouldbevacated.lIn deciding whethertogrant,amend,modify,otsuspendaninjuncdonpursuanttoRule62(c),thecovut reviews<f(1)thelikelihopdofprevoilingonthemetitsonappeal;(2)thelikelihoodof suffetingirreparableinjuryifthestayisdenied;(3)theotherpardesinvolvedwillnotbe su ùstantiallyharmedbythegrantingofthestay;and(4)thegranéngofthestaywillservethe publicinterest.''12Moore'sFederalPzactice-Civilj62.06(2018);seeLon v.Robinson, 432F.2d 977,979 (4th Cir.1970)9seealso Nken v.Holder,556U.S.418,433 (2009)9Hilton v.Braunskill,481U.S.770,777(1987). Asto the fustfactor,the courtrem ainsunchanged in itsopinion aboutdefendants' likelihood ofpzevailing on the m eritson appeal.The Actisplainly unconsdtutionaland only survivedpriorlegalchallengesonjusdciabilitygrounds.See e..,24thSenatorialDist. RepubEcanComm.v.Alcorn,820F.3d624(4thCir.2016);Millerv.Cunnin ham,512F.3d 98,101(4thCir.2007)(W ilkinson,J.,dissentingfrom denialofrehearingenbanc)(<Tome, theunconsdmdonalityofthis(incumbentselectionjprovisionisclear.').Atthehearingon tlzism otion,defendantsm ade no attem ptto persuade the colzrtoftheA ct'sconstitudonality andsolelyarguedaboutthisacdon'sjusdciability. The cmxx ofthe pardes'dispute aboutthelikelihood ofsuccessrestson w hetherthe Committee'sacéonsfollowing thecourt'sentryoftheinjuncdon mooted thisacdon. D efendantsflled a m otion to vacate on thegroundsofm ootnessin the appealbefozethe 1Even ifthecotutwereto applythestandardreqlliri ng (<asigniNcantchangein factsorlam ''vacaturofthestaywould beappropriate.Atthe tim e ofthe court'sdecision iss',ing the stay,the courtand the pardeswezeaware ofthe com ing lapseofthenomination period.However,itwasnotknown atthetimeofthedecision thatappellatebzieFmgwouldbe stkyed untilOctober2018and theActlikelywotzldbein effectforanotherelecdoncyclewithoutappellatereview.Tilis isa significantchange offactsthatm eritsvacahm 5 Case 5:17-cv-00016-MFU-JCH Document 101 Filed 09/24/18 Page 5 of 8 Pageid#: 3751 Fourth Circuit.SeeFitz erald eta1.v.Alcorn etal.,N o.18-1111,ECF N o.25.TheFolzrth Circuitalone should decidewhetherthisacdon ism oot,and itisnotforthiscourtto weigh in on argum entson appeal.W hen the m eritsofthisaction w ere before thiscotzrt,thecourt determinedthattheacdonwasjusticiableandtheActwasunconsdtaztbnal.Thecourtsees no teason to wavetfzom thisdetet-mination.Them ostthatcan be said ofdefendants'appeal isthatitpresents:% substandalcaseon the m erits.''H ilton,481U .S.at778.Thefrstfactor therefore favorsvacat'urofthe stay. Theparéeslargely do notdispute any changesin the second and thitd factors regarding theirrespecéve harm .Although Vitgirliawillhave electionsin 2019,the Comrnitteewillbereladvely unaffected becausethereisno federalelection.The Com mittee arguesthattheA ctcontinuesto distortitsdecision-m aking,aspeople arenow m aldng decisionsaffecdng future elecéon cycles.By contrast,defendantsclnim hlt'm from vacanlt ofthestaybecausetheywouldhavetobegincertainptocessestocomplywithaninjuncdon stillon appeal.Butpreliminaryinjuncéonspreventingenforcementofunconsdtutional restticdonsdo notcauseharm to the enfotcing party.See GiovaniCarandola,Ltd.v.Bason, 303F.3d507,521(4thCir.2002).Giventheconénuedbalancingofhat' m stothepardes,the courtflndsno reason to revisititsprioz dete= inadon ofthesecond and thitd factors.Atthe hearing,neitherparty m adea significantargum entasto any harm to them personally.Thei. r focus,aswith them otion to stay,iswhetherthe stay serv'esthepublicintezest. The court'sFebruary 5,2018 ordergranting the m ôtion to stay waslargely guided by the public interestin rnidgating confusion during the nonainadon process.D enialofthe m oéon would haverequired theRepublican Party to advisepartychairpersonsaboutthe 6 Case 5:17-cv-00016-MFU-JCH Document 101 Filed 09/24/18 Page 6 of 8 Pageid#: 3752 changeto the candidate selecdon pzocesswithin am atte:ofdaysand had thepotendalto influencepazty chaitpetsons'planswhhoutm uch nodce.Thisisno longerthe case.The earliesta candidatecan invoketheActisO ctober31,2018 and the nomination period does notbegin undlFebm ary 6,2019.SeePl.'sM em .ofLaw in Supp.ofM ot.to V acateStay, ECF N o.85,at2;P1.sSupp.M em .in Supp.ofM ot.to Vacate Stay,ECF N o.99,at1. V acat'urofthestay now providesdefendantsm onthsto nodfy thei. rpartychairpetsonsof theinjunction.Ifdefendantsactexpeditiously,thereshouldbeno confusion dtzringthe nominadon ptocess.Thepublicno longerhasan interestinastayoftheinjuncéon on these gzounds. H owever,thepublic continuesto have asignihcantinterestin participadng in electionsupaltered by a plainly unconstM donalstatute.Thisstataztehasa profound effecton everyvoterinVirginia.VotersshouldnotbesubjecttotheAct'sunconstitudonalconstraints where thereno longeristhecountervailing interestofa quickly approaching nom inadon process.Given thecomplexityofthejuséciabilityissuesinvolvedin thisacdon,andthestay ofappenate briehng to addressm ootnessargum ents,the appealno doubtwilltake tim e. Elecionsheld during thependency ofthisappealshould notbedistorted by theActwhere the courtalready hasrtzled on itsconsétuéonality.Futureelecéonsshould notbeaffected by decisionsm adeunderthe influence ofthe Act'slong shadow .Cf.M illerv.Brown,462 F.3d 312,317-18 (4th Cir.2006)(ffBecausecampaign planningdecisionshaveto bemade m onths,oreven years,in advanceoftheelection to be effecdve,the plaindffs'alleged injuriesareactazaland threatened.').Tlniscourtw111notffkickthecan down thetoad''any furtherwhereithasfound thatthe Actto beplainly unconsétudonal.Cf.M iller,512 F.3d at Case 5:17-cv-00016-MFU-JCH Document 101 Filed 09/24/18 Page 7 of 8 Pageid#: 3753 99(Wilkinson,J.,dissènting)rdThesequestionsmustassuredlybelidgatedanditisnotright to ldck the can down theroad w hen those seeking elecdveofhcedeserve explicitguidance from thecourtson electoralconduct').Thepublicinterestissçrv' ed byvacatingthestay. 111. Forthe reasonsstated above,the courtwillGR AN T the Com m ittee'sM otion to V acate Stay. A n appropriate O rderwillbe entered. 7 . .(:r... , . .-.......e. f sntered: 9 ay/wo/: 8 Case 5:17-cv-00016-MFU-JCH Document 101 Filed 09/24/18 Page 8 of 8 Pageid#: 3754
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
