Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City Of San Jose

Background

The court issued orders asking the parties to explain why Case No. 22-cv-00501 and Case No. 22-cv-02365 should not be consolidated. The cases both challenge portions of the City of San Jose’s recent gun-harm ordinance. The plaintiffs in both cases assert claims under the First Amendment and Article XIII C of the California Constitution.

The National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. and Mark Sikes did not oppose consolidation as long as it did not delay the court’s decision on their motion for a preliminary injunction, which the court had already issued. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association plaintiffs objected to consolidation to the extent it would cause delay and expense by requiring an evidentiary trial. The City of San Jose supported consolidating the cases for all purposes.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits consolidation when cases involve a common question of law or fact. The court explained that district courts have broad discretion to consolidate related cases pending in the same district.

The court found several common legal and factual questions. Both groups of plaintiffs challenge the same San Jose ordinance and seek to enjoin or invalidate portions of it. The court acknowledged the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association plaintiffs’ concerns about delay from an evidentiary trial but concluded that those concerns did not outweigh the administrative benefits of consolidation at this stage. The court stated that the plaintiffs could seek relief or accommodations in the consolidated case if necessary.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Case Nos. 22-cv-00501 and 22-cv-02365 be consolidated for all purposes. For administrative purposes, the court ordered the docket in the later-filed case, No. 22-cv-02365, closed. The order did not decide the underlying challenges to the ordinance.