State of California v. Health and Human Services
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-05783
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In State of California v. Health and Human Services, Judge Gilliam set supplemental-briefing deadlines after the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit acted in the case.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and intervenor-defendants were required to submit supplemental briefs according to the court’s schedule.
What happened
State of California v. Health and Human Services followed decisions by the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit that vacated earlier rulings and sent the case back for further proceedings. The parties asked to brief how those decisions affected the plaintiffs’ claims and pending motions.
The court set deadlines for the plaintiffs’ supplemental brief, the defendants’ and intervenor-defendants’ briefs, and the plaintiffs’ reply. It also scheduled a hearing for December 16, 2020, and limited the number of pages for each filing.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the scheduling order under the federal and local civil-procedure rules. The order set briefing and hearing dates but did not decide the claims or pending motions.
The detailed version
- State of California v. Health and Human Services · No. 4:17-cv-05783
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 20, 2020
Background
The order states that the Supreme Court issued a decision on July 8, 2020, in related cases. The next day, the Supreme Court granted review in this case, vacated the judgment, and sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. On October 8, 2020, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and sent the case back to the district court.
The parties asked to submit additional briefs about the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on the plaintiffs’ claims and on the dispositive motions—motions intended to resolve the case or claims—pending before the district court.
Order
The court set the following schedule:
- Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief, limited to 20 pages total: November 4,
- - Defendants’ and intervenor-defendants’ supplemental briefs, limited to 20 pages per party: November 25,
- - Plaintiffs’ reply brief, limited to 10 pages total: December 4,
- - Hearing on the supplemental briefing: December 16, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.
The dates could be changed only by court order and only upon a showing of good cause. The parties were also directed to follow the court’s standing orders.
Effect of the Order
This was a scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and the court’s local rule. It set deadlines and a hearing; it did not resolve the plaintiffs’ claims or rule on the pending dispositive motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.