In a multi-plaintiff suit, only one plaintiff need have standing in order for the case to proceed. Cf. Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others.”).

"The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others." Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993). The United States argues in its summary judgment motion that only states have standing to bring a Tenth Amendment claim.

"The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others." Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993). In this case, we have no doubt that several of the petitioners, at least, have standing to challenge the implementation of AB 5.

We need not decide whether the other plaintiffs also have standing. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993). However, we do note the argument by the plaintiff patients that the Ashcroft Directive, if followed, will achieve the in terrorem effect intended.

In a multi-plaintiff suit, only one plaintiff need have standing in order for the case to proceed. Cf. Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993) ("The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others."). A. Prior Order on Standing

Because the Individual Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their challenges to §§ 134-A(a)(4), (a)(12), and 134-E, this Court does not address HFC's standing. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993) ("The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others." (citation omitted)).

The California Plaintiffs and the San Jose Plaintiffs ultimately succeed in establishing standing with respect to the APA and the Enumeration Clause Claims. Once the Court determines that at least one of the San Jose Plaintiffs and one of the California Plaintiffs has standing, it need not consider the standing of the remaining parties. SeeLeonard v. Clark , 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994) ("The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once [a] court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others"). Here, several plaintiffs across both actions have standing.

In sum, Plaintiffs' evidence, taken as true for the purposes of summary judgment, is sufficient to establish injury with respect to the State of California, and therefore with respect to the California Plaintiffs generally. SeeLeonard v. Clark , 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that "once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others."). b. Injury to the San Jose Plaintiffs

The nonmoving party cannot carry their burden by relying solely on the facts alleged in their pleadings. Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994). Instead, their response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, must designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.

The nonmoving party cannot carry their burden by relying solely on the facts alleged in their pleadings. Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994). Instead, their response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, must designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.