National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-00501
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
National Association for Gun Rights v. City of San Jose: Judge Freeman denied the Howard Jarvis plaintiffs’ request to remand because no operative pleading existed.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association plaintiffs and the defendants in the two related cases. The plaintiffs’ request to send the case back was denied for now, but they may refile after an operative pleading is filed.
What happened
The order addresses two related cases: National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City of San Jose and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of San Jose. The Howard Jarvis plaintiffs asked the court to send their case back, but the defendants argued that there were no claims currently available to send back.
The court had dismissed all of the Howard Jarvis plaintiffs’ claims while allowing them to amend their complaint. Because they had not yet filed an amended complaint, the court said there was no operative pleading—the current complaint governing the case—to remand. It denied the motion to remand without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs may file another remand motion once an operative pleading exists, and canceled the scheduled hearing.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order. The order did not decide the underlying claims; it ruled only that the request to remand was premature.
The detailed version
- National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose · No. 5:22-cv-00501
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 2, 2023
Background
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association plaintiffs filed a motion to remand on January 10, 2023. A motion to remand asks a federal court to send a case back to the court from which it came. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that it was improper because there were currently no claims to remand. The plaintiffs did not file a reply, and the court decided the motion without oral argument.
The court had previously dismissed all of the Howard Jarvis plaintiffs’ claims while allowing them to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs had not yet filed an amended complaint. The court therefore determined that there was no operative pleading—the complaint currently governing the case—that could be remanded.
Ruling
The court denied the motion to remand. The denial was without prejudice to refiling once there is an operative pleading in the case. The court also vacated the hearing scheduled for April 6, 2023. This order did not resolve the merits of the underlying claims.
Effect
The Howard Jarvis plaintiffs did not obtain remand at this stage, but the court’s stated disposition allows them to file another motion to remand after an operative pleading exists. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.