Because Defendants have not challenged the other Plaintiffs' standing, the Court need not decide whether PJY Enterprises, LLC has standing at this time. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended (Mar. 8, 1994) (explaining that at the summary judgment stage, “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”).

” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993)). For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Mr. Putnam has standing, and the Court need not address whether BRA, an organization, meets the requirements for associational standing.

As Defendants did not assert that Coalition lacks standing, the court held “[t]he Coalition on Homelessness unquestionably has standing to pursue all forms of relief sought through this lawsuit.” It then denied the motion to dismiss the individual Plaintiffs for lack of standing, citing Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993), in which the Ninth Circuit held that “[t]he 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.” Coal. on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 22-CV-05502-DMR, 2023 WL 3637032, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2023)

The Court need not consider whether NEC possesses standing because Alliance satisfies standing for all claims that Plaintiffs have asserted. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993).

In Leonard v. Clark, the Ninth Circuit upheld a provision in a collective bargaining agreement limiting the First Amendment expression of a labor union. 12 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir. 1994).

See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264 (1977) (“Because of the presence of this plaintiff [with standing], we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit.”); 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.”)

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

Even First Amendment rights can be waived if there is "clear and convincing evidence that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent." Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing D.H. Overmyer Co., 405 U.S. 174, 92 S.Ct. 775, 31 L.Ed.2d 124). "In the civil no less than the criminal area, courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental rights."

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)).

” Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 682 (1977));