Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. California, 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20181029665 Visitors: 17
Filed: Oct. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF LITIGATION AND AGREEMENT NOT TO ENFORCE SENATE BILL 822 JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . The Court has determined that United States v. California, No. 2:18-cv-2660-JAM-DB, and American Cable Association v. Becerra, No. 2:18-cv-2684-JAM-DB, are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 and has entered Related Case Orders in each case (ECF Nos. 7 and 12, respectively). Plaintiffs in both actions have filed motions for a preliminary injunction (No. 2:
More

ORDER REGARDING TEMPORARY STAY OF LITIGATION AND AGREEMENT NOT TO ENFORCE SENATE BILL 822

The Court has determined that United States v. California, No. 2:18-cv-2660-JAM-DB, and American Cable Association v. Becerra, No. 2:18-cv-2684-JAM-DB, are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 and has entered Related Case Orders in each case (ECF Nos. 7 and 12, respectively). Plaintiffs in both actions have filed motions for a preliminary injunction (No. 2:18-cv-2660-JAM-DB, ECF No. 2; No. 2:18-cv-2684-JAM-DB, ECF No. 3). The parties in both actions, Plaintiffs the United States of America, American Cable Association, CTIA — The Wireless Association, NCTA — The Internet & Television Association, and USTelecom — The Broadband Association (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants the State of California, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., and Attorney General Xavier Becerra ("Defendants"), submitted a Stipulation Regarding Temporary Stay of Litigation and Agreement Not to Enforce Senate Bill 822. In connection with a stipulated stay of proceedings, Defendants have agreed that they shall not take any action to enforce, or direct the enforcement of, Senate Bill 822 in any respect, including through participation in any private action seeking to enforce Senate Bill 822. Defendants have agreed that this period of non-enforcement shall run until 30 days after the later of: (1) the expiration of the stay, or (2) a decision has been rendered on any renewed motion for preliminary injunctive relief that Plaintiffs may file within 30 days after the expiration of the stay. Defendants have further agreed to not take any future actions to enforce Senate Bill 822 based upon conduct occurring during the period in which Defendants have agreed to not enforce Senate Bill 822. Having considered the stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Further proceedings in both United States v. California, No. 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB, and American Cable Association v. Becerra, No. 2:18-cv-2684-JAM-DB, shall be stayed until the later of the following: (a) the D.C. Circuit issues its opinion in the petitions for review currently pending in Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, Nos. 18-1051 et al. (D.C. Cir.) and the period for seeking further review from the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court has expired; or (b) a final decision has been issued by the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court in response to any petition for rehearing or certiorari, either denying such petition or issuing a final decision.

2. Plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction (United States v. California, No. 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB, ECF No. 2; American Cable Association v. Becerra, No. 2:18-cv-2684-JAM-DB, ECF No. 3) have been withdrawn without prejudice to their refiling at a future date. The hearing on the motions, previously set for November 28, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., is taken off calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer