On Tuesday, March 22nd, we filed a short motion asking the court to rule on the joint motion to transfer the case.
We wanted to ask for a ruling before filing an opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss because we believed that, as a joint motion and it was drafted by the government, it would likely be granted.
Our plan was to ask for the ruling and then file an amended complaint rather than an opposition. We did not want to go on record of our position prematurely and as events have evolved, we had much to add to the complaint.
It was clear to us that the court was deliberately delaying ruling on the motion to transfer. It is our view that the court intended to delay ruling on the transfer motion and just rule on the motion to dismiss and then claim that it mooted the motion to transfer.
Our strategy was to file the amended complaint before opposition was due so the motion would be moot and the government would be back to square one. It would also indicate to the court that it could not delay ruling forever in hopes of ruling on the motion to dismiss.
We intended to file that on March 25th. However, before we could do so, the court denied the motion to transfer and struck our motion requesting that the judge rule.
The judge also stayed the case. The short version of the judge’s ruling is:
ORDER DENYING  Joint Motion to Transfer; STRIKING  Plaintiffs’ Request for Ruling on Joint Motion to Transfer. The Clerk is directed to STAY and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action pending resolution of the appeal in Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, No. 22-40043 (5th Cir.).
What this means is that our case is stayed while the appeal of the case that resulted in the nationwide injunction against your having to be vaccinated is pending. The court apparently believes that that injunction protects you until the 5th Circuit rules.
The Judge is correct, as far as the mandate itself goes, but it does not address the reporting requirement that is the primary procedural issue we raised.
In any event, however, the case is stayed for the time being.
This is not bad news. It is an acknowledgment that the 5th Circuit case may dispose of this entire matter and the court does not want to act in a way that might be contrary to whatever ruling comes out of the 5th Circuit.
The 5th Circuit has been sympathetic in these cases in ways other circuits have not. We will simply have to wait to see how it rules. If it is favorable, we will ask the court to reopen this case and rule in a manner consistent with that case.