UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK et al.,

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

 v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the United 

States et al., 

 Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

NOTICE REGARDING CONTESTED JURISDICTION

Defendants hereby respond to Plaintiffs’ Notice Regarding Contested Jurisdiction, ECF No. 

88 (Notice). As explained below, Plaintiffs’ notice is premature and in any event, Plaintiffs fail to 

justify expedited consideration of Defendants’ planned motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs effected service of the complaint and summons in this case on August 17, 2022. See 

ECF No. 29. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2), a motion to dismiss that complaint is 

not due until October 17, 2022. Upon the planned filing of that motion, if Plaintiffs wish to move 

this Court for expedited consideration of the motion to dismiss, they are free to move the Court to 

do so. However, it is premature to seek expedited consideration of a motion before the motion has 

even been filed, and a request for miscellaneous relief such as expedited consideration should be filed 

as a motion—with all accompanying requirements such as conferral with opposing parties—rather 

than a “notice.”

In any event, even if Plaintiffs’ notice were deemed to be a motion seeking expedited 

consideration, it should be denied. In the normal course of litigation, a motion to dismiss is due 60 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 90 Filed 10/03/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1164
2

days after the service of the complaint and summons and is briefed according to the deadlines set 

forth in the Local Rules. Now that the Court has issued preliminary injunctive relief, see ECF No. 56, 

and has clarified the scope of its preliminary injunction, see ECF No. 89, this case is no longer in the 

posture of emergency injunctive relief and is proceeding on the normal course of litigation. Any 

expedited consideration of Defendants’ planned motion to dismiss is therefore unnecessary. Instead, 

the motion should be briefed according to the normal course of litigation, and in accordance with the 

normal time limits prescribed under this Court’s Local Rules. Accordingly, in the parties’ forthcoming 

Joint Scheduling Report, Defendants will propose a deadline for the parties’ forthcoming merits 

briefing that is keyed to the resolution of Defendants’ planned motion to dismiss. 

Furthermore, Plaintiffs fail to present any justification for expedited consideration of 

Defendants’ planned motion to dismiss. The preliminary injunction issued by the Court protects

Plaintiffs from any alleged irreparable harm prior to a final adjudication of this case on the merits. 

Plaintiffs’ bare contention that “the question of subject matter jurisdiction underlies the Court’s 

existing preliminary injunction,” Notice at 1, does not justify expedited consideration. Nor do 

Plaintiffs substantiate their allegation that a motion to dismiss “may expose” the Court’s preliminary 

injunction “to collateral attack.” Id. at 1-2. A motion to dismiss does not collaterally attack a 

preliminary injunction. If the Court were to determine that Plaintiffs’ complaint cannot survive a 

motion to dismiss, then it necessarily follows that Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief. On the other 

hand, if the Court were to deny the motion to dismiss, then the preliminary injunction will continue 

to be in effect. Either way, a motion to dismiss would not collaterally attack the preliminary injunction. 

Thus, Plaintiffs cannot justify expedited consideration of Defendants’ planned motion to dismiss 

simply by noting that the Court has issued a preliminary injunction in this case, and they otherwise fail 

to justify deviating from the ordinary course of litigation. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 90 Filed 10/03/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1165
3

DATED: October 3, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

ALEXANDER K. HAAS

Director, Federal Programs Branch

LESLEY FARBY

Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch

/s/ Daniel Riess

DANIEL RIESS

MARTIN M. TOMLINSON

TAISA M. GOODNATURE

Trial Attorneys

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

U.S. Department of Justice

1100 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 353-3098

Email: Daniel.Riess@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On October 3, 2022, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of court 

for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the 

court. I hereby certify that I have served all parties electronically or by another manner authorized by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).

/s/ Daniel Riess

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 90 Filed 10/03/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1166