United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
DU WORS LLP, Derek A. Newman, WSBA No. 26967, Jason B. Sykes,
WSBA No. 44369, Rachel Horvitz, WSBA No. 52987, LAMDBA LEGAL
DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. Tara Borelli, WSBA No.
36759, Camilla B. Taylor, Peter C. Renn, Sasha Buchert, Kara
Ingelhart, Carl Charles, Paul D. Castillo (admitted pro hac
vice) OUTSERVE-SLDN, INC. N/K/A MODERN MILITARY ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA Peter Perkowski, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP James F.
Hurst, P.C., Steve Patton, Jordan M. Heinz, Vanessa Barsanti,
Daniel I. Siegfried, Joseph B. Tyson, Counsel for Plaintiffs
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant
Attorney General Civil Division JOHN R. GRIFFITHS Branch
Director ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Deputy Director ANDREW E.
CARMICHAEL, VA Bar # 76578 Trial Attorney United States
Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Counsel for Defendants
OF THE WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Colleen M. Melody,
WSBA No. 42275, Chalia I. Stallings-Ala'ilima, WSBA No.
40694, Assistant Attorneys General Civil Rights Unit Attorney
General's Office Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor State
JOINT STIPULATION TO VACATE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
J. Pechman, United States District Judge
Ryan Karnoski, Staff Sergeant Cathrine Schmid, D.L., Chief
Warrant Officer Lindsey Muller, Petty Officer First Class
Terece Lewis, Petty Officer Second Class Phillip Stephens,
Petty Officer Second Class Megan Winters, Jane Doe, Human
Rights Campaign, Gender Justice League, and American Military
Partners Association n/k/a Modern Military Association of
America (collectively “Plaintiffs”),
Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Washington, and Defendants
Donald J. Trump, Mark Esper, and the United States Department
of Defense (collectively “Defendants, ” and
together with Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor,
“Parties”) hereby stipulate as follows:
this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction on December 11, 2017 (Dkt. No. 103).
this Court struck Defendants' motion to dissolve the
preliminary injunction on April 13, 2018 (Dkt. No. 233).
the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded this Court's order
striking Defendants' motion to dissolve and further held
that “[i]f Plaintiffs no longer wish to pursue a
preliminary injunction, they may so advise the district court
on remand” (Dkt. No. 338 at 58.)
the Parties disagreed whether their discovery disputes should
be resolved first before any resolution of Defendants'
motion to dissolve (Dkt. No. 341), and this Court ordered
that “[i]f Plaintiffs wish to file an opposition to
Defendants' motion to dissolve, they must do so on or
before August 2, 2019” (Dkt. No. 344).
THEREFORE, the Parties, through their respective counsel of
record, do hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
the Ninth Circuit's issuance of the mandate, the
preliminary injunction should be vacated based on the
stipulation of the Parties, without prejudice to any renewed
motion for a preliminary injunction.
matter comes before the Court on the Parties' Joint
Stipulation to Vacate Preliminary Injunction. After
considering the Parties' Joint Stipulation, the
preliminary injunction is hereby vacated based on the
stipulation of the ...