Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02032/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02032-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

17cv2032-WQH-JLB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON HIGGINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

XAVIER BECERRA, in his official 

capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

CALIFORNIA; and CITY OF POWAY, 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv2032-WQH-JLB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge: 

On February 23, 2018, this Court entered an Order (1) granting a motion to dismiss 

filed by the Attorney General for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on standing grounds, 

(2) dismissing the City of Poway for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on standing 

grounds, (3) denying a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Higginson, and (4) 

denying a motion to intervene filed by the Proposed Intervenors as moot. (ECF No. 68).

On April 5, 2018, a clerk’s judgment was issued. (ECF No. 79). On April 6, 2018, 

Higginson filed a notice of appeal, Case No. 18-55455. (ECF No. 80). On April 12, 2018, 

the Proposed Intervenors filed a notice of cross-appeal, Case No. 18-55506. (ECF No. 84). 

On July 6, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Higginson’s case on 

appeal, Case No. 18-55455, stating that “the judgment of this Court, entered June 14, 2018, 

takes effect this date.” The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the City of Poway 

Case 3:17-cv-02032-WQH-MSB Document 99 Filed 07/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv2032-WQH-JLB

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

on standing grounds, reversed the dismissal of the Attorney General on standing grounds, 

and granted the Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene (ECF No. 18) on the merits.

The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. 

The Proposed Intervenors later filed a Motion for Designation as Party-Respondents and 

Motion to Recall Mandate in Appeal No. 18-55455, which remains pending. In the crossappeal, Case No. 18-55506, no mandate has issued and the Proposed Intervenors have filed 

a petition for panel rehearing, or in the alternative, rehearing en banc, which remains 

pending. 

On July 12, 2018, this Court issued an Order spreading the mandate and stating: “In 

light of the mandate, all parties have leave to refile any motion within twenty-one (21) days 

of this Order.” (ECF No. 88). 

On July 16, 2018, the Proposed Intervenors filed a motion requesting that this Court 

grant their motion to intervene as Defendants in this case (ECF No. 18) pursuant to the 

decision of the Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 91). The Proposed Intervenors contend that 

this is necessary in order to allow their participation in briefing on the motion for a 

preliminary injunction. The Proposed Intervenors further request that the Court enter their 

proposed Answer attached to the motion to intervene (ECF No. 18-3). 

On July 20, 2018, Higginson filed a motion for relief from order requesting that the 

Court “issue a decision on Plaintiff’s fully briefed motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 

11).” (ECF No. 95 at 2). Higginson contends that the motion has been fully-briefed and 

argued and that an expeditious decision is needed “to avoid undue and highly prejudicial 

delays.” Id. On July 23, 2018, Higginson filed a motion to shorten time to respond to the 

motion for relief from order and requested that the Court expedite its decision on the 

motion. (ECF No. 97). 

On July 25, 2018, the Proposed Intervenors filed an opposition to the motion to 

shorten time. (ECF No. 98). The Proposed Intervenors assert that, “the November 2018 

elections are now out of the hands of the named defendants, and it will be impossible for 

Plaintiff to obtain effective relief on the basis of his prior motion for preliminary 

Case 3:17-cv-02032-WQH-MSB Document 99 Filed 07/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv2032-WQH-JLB

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

injunction.” Id. at 2. The Proposed Intervenors contend that “it is unnecessary for the 

parties to brief and argue Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order on an expedited basis.” 

Id.

RULING OF THE COURT

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to shorten time filed by Higginson is 

GRANTED. (ECF No. 97).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for relief from order filed by 

Higginson is DENIED. (ECF No. 95). The Court concludes that the Defendants and 

Proposed Intervenors are entitled to additional briefing on the preliminary injunction in 

light of the changed circumstances of this case. Pursuant to the July 12, 2018 Order of the 

Court (ECF No. 88), all parties have leave to refile any motion on or before August 2, 2018. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals, 

the Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene and request to enter order of intervention are 

GRANTED. (ECF Nos. 18, 91). The Defendant-Intervenors shall file a copy of the 

Answer attached to the motion to intervene (Exhibit A, ECF No. 18-3) on the docket within 

ten (10) days of the date this Order issues. 

Dated: July 30, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02032-WQH-MSB Document 99 Filed 07/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3