Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00014/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00014-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Axon Enterprise Incorporated,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Federal Trade Commission, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00014-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

On March 4, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff Axon Enterprise Incorporated’s 

(“Axon”) motion to expedite consideration of its motion for a preliminary injunction.

(Doc. 24.) When granting that motion, the Court noted that Defendant Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC”) had raised “serious questions about whether the Court possesses

subject matter jurisdiction” to hear this case. (Id. at 2.) To that end, the Court set a hearing 

for April 1, 2020, “limited to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Id.)

Now pending before the Court is the FTC’s motion for an extension of time to file 

a responsive pleading. (Doc. 25.) The FTC states that it is planning “on filing a motion to 

dismiss based, in part, on the same jurisdictional grounds already before the Court” and 

argues that an extension would “spare the parties and the Court from duplicative and 

potentially unnecessary briefing.” (Id. at 2.) Axon opposes the motion, arguing that an 

extension would be inequitable given that it was denied an extension in the parallel 

administrative proceeding. (Doc. 26.) The FTC has filed a reply (Doc. 27) and also 

requested expedited consideration of its motion to extend (Doc. 28). 

Case 2:20-cv-00014-DWL Document 30 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

Earlier today, the Court issued a tentative order on the jurisdictional issue. That 

order concludes the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Axon’s case. To 

be clear, the Court has not made a final determination, but it would be pointless to ask the 

FTC to brief an issue (subject matter jurisdiction) the Court has already fully considered. 

Further, if the Court’s position remains unchanged after the April 1 hearing, there would 

be no need for any further briefing. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the FTC’s motion for expedited consideration 

(Doc. 28) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FTC’s motion for an extension of time to 

file a responsive pleading (Doc. 25) is granted. If such a pleading is necessary, the FTC 

will have 14 days from the date the Court enters its order on the jurisdictional question. 

Dated this 10th day of March, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00014-DWL Document 30 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2