Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02019/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02019-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Case No.: 2:19-cv-2019 DJC JDP 

Plaintiff, 

 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTROB BONTA, INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO VACATE 

Defendant. 

Defendant-Intervenor CERT has moved this Court to vacate two orders 

previously issued by Judge Mueller (1) denying CERT’s motion for summary judgment 

and (2) granting Plaintiff California Chamber of Commerce’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction. (ECF No. 205.) As a basis for this motion, CERT cites Judge Mueller’s 

alleged financial conflicts of interest at the time she issued the orders and her 

subsequent recusal from this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 455(b). 

 District courts may, at any time prior to entry of final judgment, vacate 

interlocutory orders when it is consonant with equity to do so, balancing the hardships 

of the parties and the public interests at stake. Am. Games v. Trade Prods., 142 F.3d 

1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1998). However, vacatur of an order is an extraordinary remedy, 

Case 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP Document 243 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

id. at 1169, and CERT has failed to provide any equitable reason for vacatur here. 

Judge Mueller was and remains best positioned to evaluate CERT’s allegations 

in their motion for her disqualification and the accompanying evidence. After 

reviewing CERT’s disqualification motion, Judge Mueller explained in her recusal 

order that she did not believe "CERT’s motion to recuse provide[s] a legitimate reason 

for [her] recusal,” (ECF No. 174 at 6,) concluding that she did not have a financial 

interest in the outcome of the case and that a reasonable person would not perceive a 

significant risk that she would resolve the case on a basis other than its merits. 

Nevertheless, Judge Mueller recused herself because CERT’s “uncommonly 

aggressive, scorched earth efforts” and invasion “of [her] personal life and that of [her] 

husband,” (id. at 2, 4,) caused her to question whether she could continue to act fairly 

and impartially moving forward. As Judge Mueller’s decision to recuse herself was 

based on CERT’s Motion to Disqualify, any potential bias would have arisen after

Judge Mueller issued the decisions CERT is seeking to vacate. Moreover, the Ninth 

Circuit has already affirmed the propriety of the preliminary injunction, which has now 

been in place for almost two and a half years. 

Thus, the Court finds that the balance of equities weighs in favor of upholding 

these orders, and hereby DENIES CERT’s Motion to Vacate. 

Dated: August 15, 2023 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta 

 THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP Document 243 Filed 08/16/23 Page 2 of 2