Summary
This per curiam order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit grants an emergency motion for a stay pending further action. The court stayed the district court’s March 12, 2025 order after finding that petitioners demonstrated a likelihood of success on their argument that a motion to dismiss should be resolved before discovery proceeds. The case has been held in abeyance pending the district court's disposition of the motion to dismiss.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court’s order should be stayed pending further order of this court.
- Whether petitioners satisfied the requirements for a stay of the district court’s order.
Holdings
- The emergency motion for stay is granted and the district court’s March 12, 2025 order is stayed.
- The parties are directed to promptly notify the court upon the district court’s disposition of the motion to dismiss.
Key quotations
“Petitioners have satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2024).” (at 1)
“In particular, petitioners have shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the district court was required to decide their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery.” (at 1)
Factual background
Petitioners sought a stay of the district court's order, arguing that the court should have decided their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery. They claimed to have satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay.
Procedural history
Petitioners appealed the United States District Court for the District of Columbia's March 12, 2025 order and filed an emergency motion for a stay. The appellate court considered the petition and granted the stay.
Remand instructions
Case No. 25-5072 is held in abeyance pending further order of this court.