Holloway v. City of Va. Beach

LATASHA HOLLOWAY et. al., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, et. al., Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division

July 19, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay Injunction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62, filed on July 7, 2021. ECF No. 262. On July 8, 2021, Plaintiffs responded without opposition and Defendants replied. ECF Nos. 263, 264. Having reviewed the motion and filings, this Court finds that a hearing is not necessary to address this motion. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 31, 2021, the Court entered a judgment declaring the City of Virginia Beach's at-large method of election illegal. ECF No. 242. Pursuant to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court further enjoined use of the at-large system of election, ordered that the City shall not adopt any system of election for members of its City Council that does not comply with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and ordered that the City of Virginia Beach shall not implement or utilize any practice, policy, procedure or other action that results in the dilution of minority participation in the electoral process. See id.

On April 29, 2021, Defendants filed an appeal (No. 21-1533) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ("Fourth Circuit"). ECF Nos. 247, 249, 250. On May 12, 2021, the Court ordered the parties to submit proposed remedial plans by July 1, 2021 to redress the at-large system of election for the City of Virginia Beach. ECF No. 252. On June 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion to Modify the Remedial Briefing Schedule and Defendants responded. ECF Nos. 256, 257, 258. On July 1, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to modify the remedial briefing schedule and ordered the parties to file their proposed remedial proposed plans, responses, and replies, all due by July 30, 2021. ECF No. 259.

Meanwhile, on June 3, 2021, Plaintiffs (Appellees) filed a Motion with the Fourth Circuit to Suspend Briefing and Hold the Case in Abeyance pending remedial proceedings in the district court. See No. 21-1533 Dkt. No 11. In response, on June 15, 2021, Defendants (Appellants) filed a motion in opposition to abeyance pending remedial proceedings in the district court and a cross-motion to advance the briefing and expedite the appeal on the District Court's memorandum and opinion, ECF No. 242, which found the City in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Id. at Dkt. No. 24.

Then, on July 2, 2021, Virginia Beach Councilmember Jessica Abbott announced her resignation from the Virginia Beach City Council, effective immediately, for health concerns. Ms. Abbott represented the Kempsville residency district. See ECF No. 262. Accordingly, on July 7, 2021, Defendants (Appellants) filed a letter informing the Fourth Circuit about Ms. Abbott's resignation and arguing that the Plaintiffs (Appellees) Motion to hold the case in abeyance be denied because it would irreparably harm the City and the Motion "no longer has any conceivable merit (if it ever did...)." See ECF No. 263 at Exhibit 1; see also, No. 21-1533 Dkt. No. 27. At the same time, on July 7, 2021, Defendants' also filed the instant motion before the Court. On July 12, 2021, the Fourth Circuit granted Plaintiffs' (Appellees) motion for abeyance, Dkt. No. 11, as well as denied Defendants' (Appellants) motion to expediate review of the district court'smemorandum and opinion and order, Dkt. No. 24. Id. at Dkt. No. 29. Accordingly, the Defendants request that the Court lift the permanent injunction.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court is authorized to suspend or grant equitable relief during the pendency of an appeal by Rule 62(c), F.R.Civ.P.:

When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction, the court in its discretion may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it considers proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party.

The moving party effectively asks the court to delay the implementation of its decision until the court of appeals has had an opportunity to consider the validity of that ruling. Since such an action interrupts the ordinary process of judicial review and postpones relief for the prevailing party at trial, the stay of an equitable order is an extraordinary device which should be sparingly granted. "The factors regulating the issuance of a stay are generally the same: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, at 776 (1987); see also, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 62(c), 28 U.S.C.A.

In circumstances where a stay is requested before the district issues final judgment¹, and thus, appeal is not pending, "[t]he District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). In exercising that discretion, a district court is instructed to "weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (explaining that "the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket."); see also, Dominion Energy, Inc. v. City of Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys., 928 F.3d 325, 335 (4th Cir. 2019). "Proper use of this authority calls for the exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To determine whether to grant a stay before final judgment, a district court should consider "(1) the length of the requested stay; (2) the hardship or inequity that the movant would face in going forward with the litigation; (3) the injury that a stay would inflict upon the non-movant; and (4) whether a stay would simplify issues and promote judicial economy." Rajput v. Synchrony, 221 F. Supp. 3d 607, 609-10 (M.D. Pa. 2016).

Above all, the exercise of this power is especially important "in cases of extraordinary public moment" where a party "may be required to submit to delay not immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or convenience will thereby be promoted." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, at 707 (1997) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 256).Nevertheless, the burden of showing the necessity for a stay rests with the moving party and is heightened when a stay will "work damage" to another party. Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. "The party seeking a stay must justify it by clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom it is operative." Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants' argue that the Court should stay its injunction prohibiting the City of Virginia Beach from employing the at-large system of election so that the City may conduct a special election in November 2021. In support of this argument, Defendants first contend that they have a substantial likelihood of success on appeal and they set forth their grounds for appeal. See ECF No. 262 at 6-7. Second, Defendants argue that the injunction will be irreparably harmed absent a stay because the City Council will become short one member as of November 2021 and a remedial plan "cannot be adopted and administered prior..." to the November election. Id. at 8-15. Third, Defendants' argue that Plaintiffs would not be harmed by lining the injunction. Id. at 15-17. Finally, Defendants contend that a stay would benefit the public both in the Kempsville District and across the City. Id. at 17-20.

In response, Plaintiffs do not oppose modifying the Court's injunction to allow the special election for the Kempsville residency district. ECF No. 263. Notably, the Plaintiffs assert that the results of a special election for the Kempsville district is unlikely "...to harm Plaintiffs' remedial rights." Id. at 2. However, Plaintiffs contend that if the elected candidate in the November 2021 Kempsville special election resides in the area of the district that contains a majority of the Minority population, then "... it is likely that this Court's remedial plan will be affected by thespecial election." Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).² Moreover, Plaintiffs state that they reserve the right to "seek an order from this Court truncating the term of the candidate elected in the November 2021 special election in the event that the winning candidate resides in one of the Section 2 remedial districts ordered by the Court." Id. at 4.

While F.R.C.P. Rule 62(c) authorizes the Court to grant the Defendants relief by lifting the injunction, the decision is one within the Court's discretion. Moreover, since a stay interrupts the court's proceedings, including devising equitable remedies to issue final judgment, a stay postpones relief for the prevailing party. Therefore, "the stay of an equitable order is an extraordinary device which should be granted sparingly." See United States v. State of La., 815 F. Supp. 947, 948 (E.D. La. 1993); see also, Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 398 F.Supp. 1, 17 (S.D.Tex. 1975), aff'd. 546 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1976); see also, F.M.C. v. New York Terminal Conference, 373 F.2d 424, 426 (2nd Cir. 1967).

When an injunction serves as an equitable remedy, albeit temporarily, for constitutional violations, the clear and compelling duty of the Court is to institute...