UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant City of Miami’s (“Defendant”) 

Motion to Stay Case Pending Appeal and to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines. (“Motion” or 

“Mot.”) (ECF No. 104). Therein, Defendant requests that the Court stay the case pending 

Defendant’s appeal of the Court’s order, see (“Order”) (ECF No. 94), finding that Resolution 23-

271 (“Remedial Plan”) did not correct the constitutional infirmities that were substantially likely 

to exist in Resolution 22-131 (“Enjoined Plan” or “2022 Enacted Plan”). See generally Mot.

Should the Court not grant the stay, Defendant seeks a continuance of trial and pretrial deadlines. 

See generally id. Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the City’s Motion to Stay. 

(“Resp.”) (ECF No. 111). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction, see (ECF No. 26), and found that Plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of 

success on the merits of their claim, namely that the 2022 Enacted Plan was racially gerrymandered 

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See (ECF No. 60). Immediately thereafter, the Court 

referred the Parties to supplemental mediation. See (ECF No. 61). Plaintiffs then filed an 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 1 of 6
2

unopposed motion to stay discovery, see (ECF No. 66), which the Court granted, staying discovery 

“until the interim remedial phase of this case has concluded.”

1

 See (ECF No. 67). 

Mediation was unsuccessful and on June 30, 2023, Defendant filed with the Court a Notice 

of Passage as to the Remedial Plan. See (ECF Nos. 74, 75, 77). Based on the implementation of 

the Remedial Plan, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint as moot.2 See 

generally (ECF No. 80). Therein, Defendant erroneously relied on Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 

2305 (2018) to argue that the instant Action was moot following the passage of the Remedial Plan. 

See generally id. The Court denied the motion because accepting Defendant’s argument would 

require the reversal of well-settled Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent regarding the 

Court’s remedial power in racial gerrymandering cases. See (ECF No. 91). 

Plaintiffs then filed objections to the Remedial Plan (ECF No. 83), and Defendant filed a 

memorandum of law in support of the Remedial Plan (ECF No. 86). After reviewing both Parties’

arguments and the relevant record material, the Court issued the Order sustaining the objections to 

Defendant’s Notice of Passing Remedial Plan. See generally Order. Therein, the Court provided 

a detailed analysis explaining precisely why the Remedial Plan did not provide a constitutional 

1 The Parties dispute whether and when the remedial phase of this case concluded. See Mot at 3; 

Resp. at 4. The Court issued the Order rejecting the Remedial Plan which the Eleventh Circuit 

stayed. See Order. Defendant is moving forward with the Remedial Plan in the November 2023 

elections. Notwithstanding Defendant’s appeal, the remedial phase of this proceeding has 

terminated. The stay of discovery is therefore no longer in effect. 

2 The instant Motion is filled with references to the (already dismissed) argument that the instant 

controversy is moot. See Mot. at 1, 3. Defendant also disingenuously argues that the “Court 

denied the motion to dismiss as moot, not on the merits, but because it found it had the remedial 

authority to ensure that any new plan passed ‘does not suffer from the same constitutional 

infirmities’ of the Enjoined Plan.” Id. at 3. The Court considered Defendant’s mootness argument 

in great detail and explicitly rejected it based on Defendant’s broad misinterpretation of Supreme 

Court precedent. See (ECF No. 91) (“Relying on Supreme Court precedent and informed by the 

examples of Covington III and Jacksonville II, the Court is satisfied that the passage of the 

Remedial Map has not mooted the instant Action.”). The Court will repeat itself once more: The 

Remedial Plan does not moot this controversy. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 2 of 6
3

remedy for the Enjoined Plan. See generally id. Defendant filed an emergency motion to stay the 

Order with the Eleventh Circuit. On appeal, a divided panel granted Defendant’s emergency 

motion solely based on its application of Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) to the instant 

Action. Grace v. City of Miami, CA11 Case No. 23-12472, App. Doc. 25. The appeal is now 

proceeding on the regular track.3See Resp. at 1 n.1.

Now, Defendant files this Motion requesting that the Court stay the case pending appeal. 

See Mot. In the alternative, Defendant requests a continuance of trial and pretrial deadlines. See 

generally id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The issuance of a stay pending appeal is an “extraordinary remedy.” See Garcia-Mir v. 

Meese, 781 F.2d 1450, 1455 (11th Cir. 1986). “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable 

injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (citing Virginian Ry. 

Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). “It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ 

and ‘[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Id. 

(quoting Virginian Ry. Co., 272 U.S. at 672–73). “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of 

showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433–44. Specifically, 

the movant must show: “(1) that the movant is likely to prevail on the merits on appeal; (2) that 

absent a stay the movant will suffer irreparable damage; (3) that the adverse party will suffer no 

substantial harm from the issuance of the stay; and (4) that the public interest will be served by 

issuing the stay.” Garcia-Mir, 781 F.2d at 1453. “The first two factors are the most critical.” 

3 Defendant’s misrepresentation to the Court that the appeal “has been expedited at the Plaintiffs’

request and Defendant’s consent” is not taken lightly. Mot. at 5. Plaintiffs have indicated that not 

only did they not request the appeal be expedited, but that the appeal itself is proceeding on the 

regular track. Resp. at 1 n.1. Further misrepresentations to the Court from Defendant’s counsel

may result in Rule 11 sanctions. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 3 of 6
4

Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Nken at 434–

35). “To satisfy its burden as to those factors, the party seeking the stay must show more than the 

mere possibility of success on the merits or of irreparable injury.” Id.

III. DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, Defendant invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d)4as the 

basis for its requested stay. See Mot. at 1. As noted above, a stay pending appeal is an 

extraordinary remedy and a party requesting a stay must demonstrate (1) it is likely to succeed on 

the merits on appeal; (2) absent a stay, the moving party will suffer irreparable harm; (3) the 

adverse party will not suffer substantial harm from the issuance of a stay; and (4) the issuance of 

a stay will serve the public interest. Garcia-Mir, 781 F.2d at 1453. Though generally the Court 

would analyze each factor, Defendant does not make any argument as to a single part of the stay 

test. See generally Mot. Even if it did, the Court has already explained why it does not believe 

Defendant will succeed on the merits of appeal or that Defendant stands to suffer irreparable harm. 

See generally (ECF No. 101). Without proffering any new argument as to the stay factors, or even 

engaging with the stay factors at all, the Court does not find that Defendant has met its burden 

pursuant to Rule 62(d) justifying a stay.

Giving Defendant the benefit of the doubt, the Court will presume that Defendant 

erroneously invoked Rule 62(d) as the basis for its Motion, and instead, sought a stay based upon 

4 The Court construes Defendant’s motion to invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) as the 

basis for its Motion. Technically, Defendant brings its Motion pursuant to “Florida Rule of Civil 

Procedure 62(d).” Mot. at 1. That rule does not exist, and Florida procedural law would not govern 

the Court’s consideration of the Motion. See Erie R. Co. v. Tomkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1996).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 4 of 6
5

the Court’s broad discretion to control its docket.5 See Mot. at 5. Accordingly, Defendant argues 

that (1) a stay pending appeal will streamline the issues for trial and promote judicial economy,

and (2) a stay would not prejudice Plaintiffs. Id. at 7. Plaintiffs disagree and argue that it is unclear 

what issues the Eleventh Circuit will review and that staying the case could prevent Plaintiffs from

advocating for the relief they plan to seek. See Resp. at 3, 6–7. Given the Court’s inherent control 

over its own docket, the Court agrees a stay is inappropriate.

Staying this Action will not promote judicial economy. First, it is unclear what issues the 

Eleventh Circuit will consider on appeal and the Court is unconvinced that it should stay its own 

proceedings based upon a potential topic that the Eleventh Circuit may consider. Other than this 

argument, Defendant asserts that a stay will promote judicial economy because “Plaintiffs[’] 

supplemental pleading is essentially a new action.” Mot. at 7. This argument appears to relate to 

Defendant’s continued assertion that the Remedial Plan has mooted this case, and in Defendant’s

view, Plaintiffs “must file an amended (or supplemented) pleading to challenge the [Remedial 

Plan].” Id. at 3. As the Court has clearly explained multiple times, the action is not moot. In any 

event, a supplemental complaint “set[s] forth new facts in order to update the earlier pleading.” 

Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 670 (11th Cir. 1990) (quotations omitted) (emphasis added). 

Accordingly, the Case is proceeding forward with a supplemental pleading related to the 

allegations in the Amended Complaint. Defendant does not, and perhaps cannot, explain how 

judicial economy is promoted by staying an action where the supplemental pleading raises 

allegations that are related to the initial allegations Plaintiffs raised.

5

 Defendant also argues a stay should be granted because a dispositive motion was outstanding at 

the time of filing. See Mot. at 6–7. The Court denied that motion, see (ECF No. 34), as moot. See

ECF No. 110). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 5 of 6
6

Lastly, Plaintiffs aver that they would be prejudiced by a stay. They allege that “the City’s 

commission districts have unconstitutionally segregated Miamians” and now “Miamians will 

continue to live and vote in racially gerrymandered districts until this Court intervenes.” Resp. at 

6. Plaintiffs state that they “ought to receive a trial on the merits of their claims at the soonest

possible date so that they do not have to wait years for effective relief.” Id. at 7. The Court agrees. 

Defendant’s Motion for a stay is denied. Likewise, the Court will not grant a continuance of 

pretrial and trial deadlines. 

CONCLUSION 

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the Court finds that a stay is not warranted. For 

the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay

Case Pending Appeal and to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines (ECF No. 104) IS DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ___ day of September, 2023. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record 

12th

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 6 of 6