Cato Institute v. U.S. Department of Education et al
| Cato Institute |
| U.S. Department of Education, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray and Joseph R. Biden |
| 5:2022cv04055 |
| October 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Toby Crouse |
| Rachel E Schwartz |
| Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 40 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Cato Institute re #29 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,,,, Motion to Transfer Case, (Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 39 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by Cato Institute re: MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction #13 filed by Plaintiff Cato Institute and re: Cato's supplemental brief #38 (Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 38 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Cato Institute re 34 Order, #36 Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, Order, Responding to Defendants Supplemental Brief #37 (Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 37 RESPONSE by Defendants Richard Cordray, Miguel Cardona, U.S. Department of Education, Joseph R. Biden re 34 Order,,,,,,, #36 Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,, Order,,, Supplemental Brief re Brown v. U.S. Dep't of Education, No. 4:22-cv-908 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022) (Knapp, Cody) |
Filing 36
ORDER: Additional briefing is requested regarding #13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Cato Institute. The Government's brief is to be filed no later than November 29, 2022, Plaintiff's response is to be filed no later than December 13, 2022, and the Government's reply, if any, is to be filed no later than December 20, 2022. The Government has filed a motion seeking dismissal or transfer based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and improper venue #29 . Plaintiff's response in opposition and the Government's reply should be filed on December 13, 2022, and December 20, 2022, respectively. To the extent practicable, the response and reply briefs should be consolidated with the briefing on the impact of Brown.
|
| Filing 35 NOTICE OF CANCELLED HEARING previously scheduled for November 17, 2022. Order with briefing deadlines to follow. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta) |
|
Filing 34
Order. Plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration that "Defendants' unauthorized student-loan-debt-cancellation scheme [is] unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful" and "to enjoin its implementation and set it aside." Doc. 1 at 29. An in-person hearing on this request is scheduled to occur on November 17. Doc. 23. Plaintiff's request is similar to several other suits filed across the country seeking the same result. Doc. 24 at 4 (identifying, among others, Brown v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., N.D. Tex. Case No. 22-0908). And on November 10, 2023, the Northern District of Texas in Brown granted summary judgment to the two plaintiffs in that suit, declaring the student loan forgiveness plan unlawful and vacating it in its entirety. Brown v. Dep't of Educ., No. 4:22-cv-0908, 2022 WL 16858525, at *14 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022); see also Nebraska v. Biden, 2022 WL 16912145 (8th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (granting several states request for emergency injunction of the student loan forgiveness plan pending appeal). A stay of this litigation therefore seems prudent because the Brown decision may be entitled preclusive effect on the legal question presented by Plaintiff's complaint. See Kittel v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 303 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (10th Cir. 2002) (staying proceedings in a res judicata context until a state appeal was resolved); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments 13 cmt. F (Am. L. Inst. 1982). The Court will schedule a brief phone conference to occur on November 15 to discuss how best to proceed, including whether the November 17 hearing should be cancelled. Signed by District Judge Toby Crouse on 11/14/22. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(ta)
|
| Filing 33 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Plaintiff Cato Institute re: #13 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction (Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 32 Summons Returned Executed -- served by Certified Mail on 10/20/2022 Summons served on United States Attorney General. President Biden, Richard Cordray, Miguel Cardona, and U.S. Department of Education (Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 31 EXHIBIT(S) IN SUPPORT of #30 Response to Motion Declaration of James Richard Kvaal by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Attachments: #1 Rationale for the Pandemic-Connected Loan Discharge Program, #2 Decision Memo from Secretary Cardona to Chief Operating Officer Cordray, #3 Waivers and Modifications Memo from Secretary Cardona to Assistant Secretary Nasser Paydar)(Knapp, Cody) |
| Filing 30 RESPONSE by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education re #13 Motion for TRO and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF #29 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction & Motion to Transfer Case (Knapp, Cody) |
| Filing 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , MOTION to Dismiss for Improper Venue ( Response deadline 11/28/2022), MOTION to Transfer Case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ( Response deadline 11/21/2022) by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Knapp, Cody) |
| Filing 28 NOTICE of Development in Garrison v. U.S. Dep't of Education by Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Supreme Court Docket, No. 22A373)(Knapp, Cody) |
|
Filing 27
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Doc. #26 , directing that defendant may file a response not to exceed 45 pages and plaintiff a reply, if any, not to exceed 10 pages. Signed by District Judge Toby Crouse on 11/1/22. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta)
|
| Filing 26 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Knapp, Cody) |
| MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: #26 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(bh) |
| Filing 25 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of #13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Supplemental Brief Regarding Standing and Scope of Injunctive Relief by Plaintiff Cato Institute(Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 24 Joint NOTICE of Related Litigation by Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Knapp, Cody) |
|
Filing 23
ORDER expediting briefing deadlines as to #13 Motion for TRO. Plaintiff Cato's supplemental brief to be filed by October 31, 2022; Government's response to be filed by November 7, 2022; Plaintiff's Reply to be filed by November 10, 2022. Hearing is set for November 17, 2022 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in Kansas City, Kansas, Courtroom 643. Signed by District Judge Toby Crouse on 10/28/22. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta)
|
| Filing 22 NOTICE of Hearing: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING as to #13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2022 at 09:30 AM in KC Courtroom 643 before District Judge Toby Crouse. (ta) |
| Filing 21 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before District Judge Toby Crouse: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 10/26/2022. The court denies without prejudice #17 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages/Motion for Order. Parties to contact chambers by email with proposed briefing schedule as discussed on record. (Court Reporter Sherry Harris.) (ta) |
| Filing 20 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE (16 pgs) held 10-26-22 before Judge T. Crouse. Court Reporter: Sherry Harris, 785-338-5354, sherry_harris@ksd.uscourts.gov. Transcript purchased by: C. Knapp. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.ksd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/24/2023. (sh) |
| MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: #17 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response and in ReplyJoint MOTION for Order Adopting Proposed Briefing Schedule. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge. |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of RESCHEDULED Telephone Conference: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. Telephone Conference is now set for 10/26/2022 at 01:00 PM in Telephone TC - CONFERENCE LINE 1-877-402-9753 ACCESS CODE 6722344 before District Judge Toby Crouse. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Hearing: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. Telephone Conference set for 10/25/2022 at 04:30 PM CENTRAL by Telephone TC - CONFERENCE LINE 1-877-402-9753 ACCESS CODE 6722344 before District Judge Toby Crouse. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta) |
| Filing 17 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response and in Reply, Joint MOTION for Order Adopting Proposed Briefing Schedule (Response deadline 11/8/2022) by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education. (Knapp, Cody) |
| Filing 16 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Cody Taylor Knapp on behalf of Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Knapp, Cody) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Eighth Circuit Ruling by Cato Institute (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 14 Summons Returned Executed -- served by Personal Service on 10/20/2022 Joseph R. Biden served on 10/20/2022, answer due 12/19/2022; Miguel Cardona served on 10/20/2022, answer due 12/19/2022; Richard Cordray served on 10/20/2022, answer due 12/19/2022; U.S. Department of Education served on 10/20/2022, answer due 12/19/2022. Summons served on United States Attorney. (Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Cato Institute (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support)(Chenoweth, Markham) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Sheng Li for Cato Institute pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 10/21/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ca)
|
| Filing 11 AFFIDAVIT of Sheng Li re #7 MOTION for attorney Sheng Li to appear pro hac vice by Plaintiff Cato Institute (Attachments: #1 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Russell G. Ryan for Cato Institute pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 10/21/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (kas)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER regarding #7 Motion for Attorney Sheng Li to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The affidavit submitted by Sheng Li does not comply with D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 in that it is not notarized and/or does not contain a declaration that the affidavit is being signed under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, as required by the Court's form. On or before October 25, 2022, the Court directs local counsel to file an amended affidavit that is notarized and/or contains a declaration that the affidavit is being signed under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 10/21/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(jrh)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for attorney Russ Ryan to appear pro hac vice by Plaintiff Cato Institute (referred to Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz) (Attachments: #1 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for attorney Sheng Li to appear pro hac vice by Plaintiff Cato Institute (referred to Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz) (Attachments: #1 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 6 DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL filed by Plaintiff Cato Institute - trial to be held in Kansas City. (Chenoweth, Markham) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER denying without prejudice #3 & #4 Motions for Attorneys to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The affidavits submitted by Sheng Li and Russ Ryan do not comply with D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 in that the affidavits do not follow the District's prescribed form and do not contain all of the information required by that form, including whether the applicant is in good standing in all bars of which the applicant is a member. If counsel wishes to refile the motions, the Court directs counsel to the District's website and to "Forms" under the "Menu" tab. Under "Civil Forms," the District's prescribed Pro Hac Vice form is titled "Pro Hac Vice: Motion for Leave to Appear and Affidavit." If counsel refiles these motions, the pro hac vice fees previously paid as part of filing #3 and #4 shall be applied to any renewed motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 10/19/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jrh)
|
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (issued to Attorney for service) (ada) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for attorney Russ Ryan to appear pro hac vice ( Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC-5893298.) by Plaintiff Cato Institute (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Ryan Affidavit, #2 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for attorney Sheng Li to appear pro hac vice ( Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC-5893270.) by Plaintiff Cato Institute (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Sheng Affdavit, #2 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Plaintiff Cato Institute. (Chenoweth, Markham) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with trial location of Topeka ( Filing fee $402, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC-5893196.), filed by Cato Institute. (Attachments: #1 Declaration)(Chenoweth, Markham) |
| NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT: Case assigned to District Judge Toby Crouse and Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz for all proceedings. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jk) |
| NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY - Designation of place of trial is missing. The filing party/attorney is directed to correct the deficiency immediately. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jk) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
