SENECA NATION OF INDIANS v. PATERSON
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID PATERSON, Governor of the State of New York, JAMIE WOODWARD, Acting Commissioner, NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, WILLIAM COMISKEY, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Tax Enforcement, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, JOHN MELVILLE, Acting Superintendent, New York State Police, each in his or her official capacity, Defendants.
CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Intervenor,
No. 10-CV-687A.
United States District Court, W.D. New York.
October 14, 2010.
DECISION AND ORDER (Stay Pending Appeal)RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge.
INTRODUCTIONThe Seneca Nation of Indians ("Seneca Nation") commenced this action seeking to enjoin implementation of certain amendments to the New York State tax law relating to the taxation of cigarettes sold by reservation retailers. Along with the complaint, the Seneca Nation filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Cayuga Indian Nation of New York ("Cayuga Nation") was granted permission to intervene in the action and joined in the motion for a preliminary injunction.
A preliminary injunction hearing was held on September 14 and 15, 2010. On September 23rd, this Court heard supplemental argument on the motion. In a separate Decision and Order issued today, this Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction upon finding that the plaintiffs had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
The Nations have expressed their intent to appeal the denial of their motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which they have the right to do. In light of the Court's adverse determination, they ask that this Court grant a stay pending appeal so as to prevent irreparable injury to the Nations pending an opportunity by the Second Circuit to fully consider their arguments. The State of New York opposes any further stay of the new tax laws.
Absent a stay pending appeal, the new tax amendments will take effect immediately. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds it necessary to further stay implementation of the new tax amendments pending appeal by the Nations.
1. The background of this action is fully set forth in this Court's Decision and Order denying the preliminary injunction motion. See Dkt. 87. Familiarity with that Decision and Order is assumed.
2. The fact that an appeal has not yet been filed is of no consequence. Where, as here, "there is reason to believe that an appeal will be taken, there is no reason why the [C]ourt should not make an order preserving the status quo during the expected appeal." See 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2904.