Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Tanzin et al. (all defendant-appellees) OPPOSING PARTY:____________________________________________
MOVING PARTY:_______________________________________ Tanvir et al.
___Plaintiff ✔
___Defendant
___Appellant/Petitioner ✔
___Appellee/Respondent
Sarah S. Normand
MOVING ATTORNEY:___________________________________ Ramzi Kassem, Esq.
OPPOSING ATTORNEY:________________________________________
[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]
U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
________________________________________________________ Main Street Legal Services, Inc., CUNY School of Law
_______________________________________________________________
86 Chambers St., New York, NY 10007
________________________________________________________ 2 Court Square, Long Island City, NY 11101
_______________________________________________________________
sarah.normand@usdoj.gov, 212.637.2709
________________________________________________________ 718.340.4630; ramzi.kassem@law.cuny.edu
_______________________________________________________________
US District Court, SDNY (Abrams, J.)
Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has this request for relief been made below? ✔
___Yes ___No
✔
___Yes ___No (explain):__________________________ Has this relief been previously sought in this court? ✔
___Yes ___No
_______________________________________________ Requested return date and explanation of emergency: ________________
_____________________________________________________________
Opposing counsel’s position on motion:
_____________________________________________________________
✔
___Unopposed ___Opposed ___Don’t Know
_____________________________________________________________
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
_____________________________________________________________
✔
___Yes ___No ___Don’t Know
Is oral argument on motion requested? ✔ (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)
___Yes ___No
Sarah S. Normand
_________________________________ February 20, 2019 Service by: ___CM/ECF
Date:__________________ ✔ ___Other [Attach proof of service]
Form T
F T-1080
1080 ((rev.12-13)
12 13)
Case 16-1176, Document 137-2, 02/20/2019, 2501320, Page1 of 4
Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, attorney
named appeal. Along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ellen Blain and Benjamin
Torrance, I have been assigned to litigate this matter, and I am fully familiar with
Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(1), to stay the mandate for the purpose of allowing the
§ 2000bb et seq., does not permit suits for money damages against individual
the district court’s judgment, holding that RFRA does permit money-damages suits
petition was denied on February 14, 2019. Two dissents were filed from the
denial of rehearing. See ECF No. 135 (Jacobs, C.J., joined by Cabranes and
Sullivan, C.JJ.), ECF No. 136 (Cabranes, C.J., joined by Jacobs and Sullivan,
C.JJ.).
stay the mandate to allow the Solicitor General, or potentially private counsel, to
decide whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. A
petition for certiorari “would present a substantial question” and “there is good
that identical language in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(a), has been held not to create such a remedy,
2
Case 16-1176, Document 137-2, 02/20/2019, 2501320, Page3 of 4
Washington v. Gonyea, 731 F.3d 143, 146 (2d Cir. 2013). See ECF No. 135 at 2-
3. Judge Jacobs’ dissent also underscores the importance of this issue. See id. at
9 (“A private right of action for money damages against individual officers of ‘a
government’ entails ‘substantial societal costs, including the risk that the fear of
personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in
employees who are sued personally,’ and the ‘costs and consequences to the
Government itself when the tort and monetary liability mechanisms of the legal
system are used to bring about the proper formulation and implementation of
public policies.’” (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987), and
certiorari. The individual defendants are unable to represent that they will file
such a petition because they are represented by the Department of Justice, and the
Solicitor General would need to authorize the Department’s filing of any petition
for certiorari on their behalf. However, in the event the Solicitor General were to
decline to authorize such a filing, the individual defendants could retain private
counsel to file a petition for certiorari. The individual defendants should not be
3
Case 16-1176, Document 137-2, 02/20/2019, 2501320, Page4 of 4
required to participate in further district court litigation while the Solicitor General,
appellants Ramzi Kassem this afternoon by electronic mail that the individual
defendants intended to file a motion to stay the mandate, and she asked whether
counsel consented to the motion. As of the filing of this motion, we have not yet
received a response.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.