Ramos v. Nielsen
- Edward Chen
- 3:18-cv-01554
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ramos v. Mayorkas, Judge Chen deferred the fee ruling and stayed proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Stinnie.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee motion and the parties’ proceedings are affected; the court paused further proceedings until after the Supreme Court’s decision in Stinnie.
What happened
In Crista Ramos et al. v. Alejandro Mayorkas et al., the plaintiffs asked the court to award them attorneys’ fees.
The government and plaintiffs did not claim that a stay would cause significant injury or hardship. The court focused instead on whether waiting would help organize and simplify the legal issues because the Supreme Court was considering a related question in Stinnie.
Judge Edward M. Chen deferred ruling on the fee motion and stayed the proceedings. The parties must file a status report within two weeks after the Supreme Court issues its decision in Stinnie.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. Nielsen · No. 3:18-cv-01554
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 15, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys’ fees. The court considered whether to pause proceedings while the Supreme Court considered Lackey v. Stinnie, No. 23-621. The opinion later refers to the Supreme Court matter as Stinnie v. Holcomb and states that it concerns whether a plaintiff who wins a preliminary injunction but does not obtain a final judgment can qualify as a prevailing party.
Reasoning
The court exercised its discretion under Landis v. North American Co. to stay the proceedings while awaiting a decision in a different case. It considered three non-exclusive factors: possible damage from a stay, hardship or unfairness from requiring a party to continue, and whether a stay would promote the orderly administration of justice by simplifying or complicating the issues, evidence, and legal questions.
Neither party claimed real injury or hardship from granting or denying a stay. The court therefore focused on the orderly administration of justice and agreed with the government that the Supreme Court’s decision could decide the pending fee motion or at least provide guidance for resolving it. The court also concluded that the stay should not be excessively long because the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the matter in October 2024.
Ruling
The court deferred ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and stayed the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Stinnie. The parties were ordered to file a status report within two weeks after the Supreme Court issues its decision. Judge Edward M. Chen entered the order on August 15, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.