In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-00717
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation: Judge Tigar granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to strike and denied their request to respond.
The ruling affected the Plaintiffs and Defendants in all actions in the consolidated California bail bond antitrust litigation: the court struck the arguments accompanying Defendants’ recent-decision notice, would consider the attached decision, and denied Plaintiffs’ request to file a response.
What happened
In In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, Defendants filed a notice about a recent Ninth Circuit decision while opposing Plaintiffs’ request for class certification. Plaintiffs asked the court to strike the notice because its accompanying paragraph included improper argument.
Defendants said the paragraph merely summarized the decision and identified relevant analysis. The court found that Defendants had improperly summarized only favorable portions and applied the decision’s reasoning to this case, contrary to the local rule requiring a recent-decision notice to contain no argument.
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Plaintiffs’ motion to strike in part, striking the arguments and stating that the court would consider only the attached decision. He denied Plaintiffs’ request to file a response.
The detailed version
- In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation · No. 4:19-cv-00717
- Jon Tigar
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
The court considered Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ statement of a recent decision. Defendants had filed the statement in support of their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The statement identified the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Engilis v. Monsanto and included a paragraph of accompanying text.
Parties’ Positions
Plaintiffs argued that the accompanying paragraph was improper argument under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(2). In the alternative, Plaintiffs asked for permission to file a response. Defendants argued that the paragraph was only a case summary, with one sentence directing the court to relevant analysis. Defendants alternatively asked the court to consider the Engilis decision without considering the accompanying argument.
Court’s Analysis
Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(2) allows parties to submit statements of recent decisions, but requires those notices to cite and provide a copy of the new opinion without argument. The court found that Defendants’ commentary violated the rule because it summarized only favorable portions of the opinion and applied the opinion’s reasoning to this case.
Disposition
The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to strike in part. It struck the arguments in Defendants’ statement and stated that it would consider only the copy of the Engilis decision attached to the notice. The court denied Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a response. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered the order on October 21, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.