Jordahl v. Brnovich

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Mikkel Jordahl, et al., No. CV-17-08263-PCT-DJH

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Mark Brnovich, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 27, 16 2018, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and enjoined 17 Defendants from enforcing A.R.S. § 35-393.01(A) (“the Act”), an Arizona statute that 18 prohibited public entities from contracting with companies that engage in “boycott[s] of 19 Israel.” (Doc. 63). Defendants appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 20 (Doc. 65). While that appeal was pending, the Arizona Legislature amended portions of 21 the Act with Senate Bill 1167 (“the revised Act”). The revised Act took effect in August 22 2019 and effectively exempts Plaintiffs from its terms.1 Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit 23 found that Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot. (Doc. 85-1). 24 In its Memorandum Decision, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and 25 remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and 26

27 1 The revised Act now only applies to (1) companies with ten or more full-time employees, and (2) contracts valued at $100,000 or more. See S.B. 1167, 54th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess 28 (Ariz. 2019); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 35-393(2), 35-393.01(A). || injunctive relief.* (/d.) In accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s instructions, 2 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are 3 || moot and therefore are DISMISSED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this case and 5 || enter judgment accordingly. 6 Dated this 28th day of January, 2020. 7 8 fe □□ ? norable'Dian¢g/. Hunfetewa 10 United States District Fudge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 □ ? As the Ninth Circuit noted, this Court will retain jurisdiction to determine whether an award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate under 42 USC. § 1988(b). Watson v. Cty of Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2002). _2-