Please take notice that Christopher M. Lynch, Trial Attorney at the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, hereby enters his appearance as counsel for Defendants in the above-captioned matter.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of October, 2021.

But the Biden Administration has nonetheless decided to engage in unconstitutional discrimination based 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Case 2:21-cv-01568-MTL Document 14 Filed 10/22/21 ...

The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4 (l)) This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) ; or ’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name) , a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or on (date) ’ I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) on (date) ’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ’ Other (specify): My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date: Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: Server’s signature Printed name and title Server’s address

The court found that none of the four following factors favored defendants’ request for stay pending appeal: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant ...

The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4 (l)) This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) ; or ’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name) , a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or on (date) ’ I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) on (date) ’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ’ Other (specify): My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date: Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: Server’s signature Printed name and title Server’s address

Federal Defendants (“Defendants”) have effectively conceded they have no intent to forebear enforcement, not even for one minute, if the Georgia court’s nationwide injunction of the Contractor Mandate is stayed or reversed.

And Defendants’ refusal to commit to even an iota of forbearance virtually ensures that they could enforce the Contractor Mandate before this Court could take action in the event that the Georgia injunction were ever stayed/vacated/reversed.

State Plaintiffs replied that same day and consented to Defendants’ request on a single condition: that Defendants agree to forbear from enforcing the Contractor Mandate in Arizona for three weeks if the Georgia nationwide injunction is ever stayed, dissolved, or modified because, otherwise, “Defendants could obtain a stay from the Eleventh Circuit and immediately resume enforcing the Contractor Mandate in Arizona before the State could seek (and obtain) relief from the district court in our case.

By way of example, the Ninth Circuit has upheld preliminary relief to preserve the status quo where defendants could terminate an agreement with 60-days’ notice, which would result in the plaintiffs suffering ‘irreparable harm before a trial on the merits could be held.’” California, 390 F. Supp.

Joseph A. Kanefield (No. 15838) Brunn W. Roysden III (No. 28698) Drew C. Ensign (No. 25463) James K. Rogers (No. 27287) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mark Brnovich and the State of Arizona

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s Application to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (Doc. 255).

The Court finds that the Motion contains the information required by Rule 83.3(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Attorneys Hannah H. Porter and Kevin O’Malley of Gallagher and Kennedy, P.A. are relieved of any further representation of Plaintiffs in this case.

The Clerk of the Court is kindly instructed to terminate Hannah H. Porter and Kevin O’Malley as counsel of record and to remove their names from the electronic certificate of mailing.

Dated this 15th day of February, 2023.

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs lack standing because they “cannot demonstrate any actual or imminent injury caused by the challenged policies” and, in addition, “none of the harms alleged is [sic] fairly traceable to challenged policies, ...

... determined that the state’s allegations did not rise to the level of abdication of statutory responsibilities because the pleaded facts only indicated a disagreement with DHS’s enforcement priorities, not DHS’s blanket nonenforcement ...