Opinion
19-cv-1226-L-AHG
12-14-2022
MATTHEW JONES, et al., Plaintiffs v. ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, et al., Defendants
ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS' PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS MOOT [ECF NO. 21] AND (2) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE.
Hon. M. James Lorenz United States District Judge
Before the Court is this Second Amendment rights case. On November 3, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. [ECF No. 21 (Motion) ECF No. 66 (Order).] On November 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [ECF No. 68.] On May 11, 2022, the appellate court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part, this Court's order denying Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction. Jones v. Becerra, case no. 20-56174 (9th Cir. 2022). On July 25, 2022, Appellees Rob Bonta and Martin Horan filed a petition for panel re-hearing and petition for rehearing en banc. On September 7, 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the request for panel rehearing, vacated the panels' May 11, 2022, opinion, vacated this Court's order denying preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (“Bruen”), 597 U.S.; 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022). [ECF No. 91], As a result of the appellate court's September 7, 2022 ruling, Plaintiffs preliminary injunction motion [ECF no. 21] became pending again. On September 14, 2022, this Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing discussing the impact of Bruen on Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. [ECF No. 92.] The parties timely filed supplemental briefing. [ECF Nos. 95, 96.]
The Court finds that Bruen represents a change in the legal framework this Court applied when deciding Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, therefore, pursuant to the appellate court's direction, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction as MOOT. [ECF No. 21.]
Defendants' have requested time to submit additional evidence and substantive briefing. (Def. Supp. Brief. at 39 [ECF No. 96.]) The Court has reviewed Defendants' request and finds good cause to issue the following briefing schedule:
1. Should Plaintiffs choose to re-file the motion, they must do so no later than January 16, 2023. Any response in opposition is due no later than March 16, 2023. Any reply is due no later than April 17, 2023.
2. Defendants shall respond to the complaint no later than January 16, 2023.
3. To the extent the parties request additional discovery regarding Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, if any, they are directed to contact Magistrate Judge Goddard's chambers to address the necessity and extent of discovery and set a schedule consistent with the schedule set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED