Dordt College v. Azar II, 5:13-cv-04100

Plaintiffs (Dordt College and Cornerstone University) obtained a preliminary injunction on June 26, 2014, enjoining enforcement of an HHS regulatory scheme relating to ACA preventive-services coverage.
Defendants (HHS Secretary et al.) appealed the preliminary injunction to the Eighth Circuit; oral argument was scheduled for December 2014.
The district court had reserved ruling on defendants’ dispositive motion and ordered supplemental briefing by October 29, 2014, in light of Wheaton College v. Burwell and interim HHS regulations.
Defendants moved (unopposed by plaintiffs) to stay all district-court proceedings pending resolution of the appeal.
The court applied the standard stay factors (prejudice to non-moving party; whether stay will simplify issues; status of discovery/trial setting) and concluded a stay best served judicial economy and efficiency.
The court granted the stay, requiring the parties to notify the court within 15 days after the appeal concludes about further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay district-court proceedings pending the Eighth Circuit appeal	Plaintiffs did not oppose a stay	Stay avoids duplicative litigation and preserves resources while appeal resolves key issues	Granted: proceedings stayed pending appeal or further order
Whether a stay would prejudice plaintiffs	Plaintiffs asserted no prejudice (did not oppose)	Defendants asserted no undue prejudice; appeal imminent	Court found no undue prejudice given plaintiffs’ consent and pending appeal
Whether the appeal will simplify or resolve district issues	Plaintiffs implicitly agreed stay appropriate because appeal likely dispositive	Defendants argued the appeal will address merits (e.g., RFRA likelihood) and overlap with district issues	Court found stay likely to simplify/resolve issues and avoid duplication
Whether case posture favors a stay (discovery/trial readiness)	Plaintiffs noted case not at trial; earlier litigation costs incurred	Defendants noted no trial date and that further district work would be wasteful	Court found case not so advanced as to preclude a stay and favored economy of resources

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (district courts have inherent power to stay proceedings for docket and resource economy)
Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983) (stays appropriate where independent proceedings will materially affect the case)
Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014) (Supreme Court interim action relevant to regulatory landscape and supplemental briefing)