National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose

N.D. California

National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose

DecidedFebruary 2, 2023

Docket5:22-cv-00501

StatusUnknown

This text of National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose (National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN Case No. 22-cv-00501-BLF RIGHTS, INC., et al., 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, REMAND WITHOUT PREJUDICE 9 v. 10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS Case No. 22-cv-02365-BLF 13 ASSOCIATION, et al.,

14 Plaintiffs, 15 v.

16 CITY OF SAN JOSE, 17 Defendant.

18 On January 10, 2023, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (“HJTA Plaintiffs”) filed a 19 motion to remand. ECF No. 86 (“Mtn.”). On January 26, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition. 20 ECF No. 89 (“Opp.”). Defendants argue that the motion to remand is improper, as there are 21 currently no claims to remand. Opp. at 2-3. The HJTA Plaintiffs have not filed a reply, and the 22 deadline for doing so has passed. The Court finds the motion suitable for submission without oral 23 argument and VACATES the hearing set for April 6, 2023. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 24 On September 30, 2022, the Court issued an Order dismissing all of the HJTA Plaintiffs’ 25 claims with leave to amend. ECF No. 81. Plaintiffs in this case have not yet filed an amended 26 complaint. The Court agrees with Defendants that a motion to remand is premature, as there is 27 currently no operative pleading to remand. See Holt v. Alvarado, No. 1:19-cv-00930-NONE- 1 GSA-PC, 2020 WL 7262885, at *1, n.1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020). The Court therefore DENIES 2 || the motion to remand. This denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling a motion to remand once 3 there is an operative pleading in this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: January 2, 2023 foofnaan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN Case No. 22-cv-00501-BLF RIGHTS, INC., et al., 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, REMAND WITHOUT PREJUDICE 9 v. 10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS Case No. 22-cv-02365-BLF 13 ASSOCIATION, et al.,

14 Plaintiffs, 15 v.

16 CITY OF SAN JOSE, 17 Defendant.

18 On January 10, 2023, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (“HJTA Plaintiffs”) filed a 19 motion to remand. ECF No. 86 (“Mtn.”). On January 26, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition. 20 ECF No. 89 (“Opp.”). Defendants argue that the motion to remand is improper, as there are 21 currently no claims to remand. Opp. at 2-3. The HJTA Plaintiffs have not filed a reply, and the 22 deadline for doing so has passed. The Court finds the motion suitable for submission without oral 23 argument and VACATES the hearing set for April 6, 2023. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 24 On September 30, 2022, the Court issued an Order dismissing all of the HJTA Plaintiffs’ 25 claims with leave to amend. ECF No. 81. Plaintiffs in this case have not yet filed an amended 26 complaint. The Court agrees with Defendants that a motion to remand is premature, as there is 27 currently no operative pleading to remand. See Holt v. Alvarado, No. 1:19-cv-00930-NONE- 1 GSA-PC, 2020 WL 7262885, at *1, n.1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020). The Court therefore DENIES 2 || the motion to remand. This denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling a motion to remand once 3 there is an operative pleading in this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: January 2, 2023 foofnaan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-association-for-gun-rights-inc-v-city-of-san-jose-cand-2023.