COLLEEN KOLLAR–KOTELLY

Mark William Ryan, Katharine Stevens Mitchell-Tombras, Kathleen Suzanne O'Neill, William H. Stallings, Ryan J. Danks, Bennett C. Rushkoff, Nicholas Alan Bush, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Nancy M. Bonnell, Susan V. Myers, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, Lizabeth A. Brady, Christopher R. Hunt, Office of the Florida Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, James A. Donahue, III, Jennifer Ann Thomson, Office of the Attorney General, Harrisburg, PA, Victor J. Domen, Jr., Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Nashville, TN, Sarah Oxenham Allen, Matthew Ryan Hull, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, D.J. Pascoe, Michigan Department Of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Plaintiffs. Richard G. Parker, Courtney B. Dyer, Henry C. Thumann, Katrina M. Robson, Kenneth R. O'Rourke, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Steven Gill Bradbury, Gorav Jindal, Paul T. Denis, Paul H. Friedman, Dechert LLP, Mary Jean Moltenbrey, Scott Mitchell Flicker, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, L.L.P., Christopher N. Thatch, Michael S. Fried, Rosanna K. McCalips, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Andrew J. Forman, Charles F. Rule, Daniel J. Howley, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Washington, DC, John M. Majoras, Paula W. Render, Jones Day, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

ORDER

COLLEEN KOLLAR–KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff the United States of America's [92] Motion for a Stay of Litigation in Light of Lapse of Appropriations. Plaintiff has requested a stay due to the lapse of appropriations to the Department of Justice, stating that absent an appropriation, Department of Justice attorneys and employees are generally prohibited from working, except in very limited circumstances, including “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. Defendants have opposed Plaintiff's motion for a stay.

The Court concludes that a stay would be inappropriate here for a number of reasons. This case involves a pending merger agreement between two major airlines, with a deadline for completion of January 18, 2014. The closing of this merger has been delayed by the affirmative actions of Plaintiffs in filing this case and seeking injunctive relief to block the merger. In light of these considerations, and the amount of money at stake in this merger, this case is clearly significant for both sides. Furthermore, the resolution of Defendant American Airline's pending bankruptcy proceedings hinges on the proceedings in this case. In addition, various amici—particularly employees of the Defendants—have a vested interest in the adjudication of this case without delay. Indeed, because of the need for the prompt resolution of this matter, the Court has set an expedited discovery and trial schedule. A stay at this point would undermine this schedule and delay the necessary speedy disposition of this matter. It is essential that the Department of Justice attorneys continue to litigate this case.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is, this 1st day of October, 2013, hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff the United States of America's [92] Motion for a Stay of Litigation in Light of Lapse of Appropriations is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.