Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02019/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02019-5/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 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 The Center for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT), an intervenor defendant in this 

20 action, applies ex parte to stay this court’s order granting a preliminary injunction. See Ex Parte 

21 App., ECF No. 116; Prev. Order, ECF No. 116. The California Chamber of Commerce opposes 

22 CERT’s ex parte application. Opp’n, ECF No. 117. The deadline for oppositions to ex parte 

23 applications under this court’s standing order has expired without any statement by the Attorney 

General.1 24 Cf. Metzger Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 116 (“Prior to filing this application, I contacted 

25 counsel of record for all parties to this action, to ascertain whether they would stipulate to the stay 

1

 While Xavier Becerra is still identified in the caption of this case as the defendant 

Attorney General, his successor will be substituted in once confirmed to the post. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

25. 

California Chamber of Commerce, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Xavier Becerra in his official capacity as 

Attorney General of the State of California, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:19-cv-02019-KJM-JDP

ORDER 

Case 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP Document 118 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 requested herein. . . . Counsel for Defendant, Xavier Becerra, advised that the Attorney General 

2 was in the process of evaluating the matter.”). 

3 A stay is an exercise of judicial discretion in light of the “circumstances of the particular 

4 case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (citation omitted). The factors that inform a 

5 decision to stay pending appeal are essentially the same factors applicable to a motion for a 

6 preliminary injunction. “A party seeking a stay must establish that he is likely to succeed on the 

7 merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, that the balance of 

8 equities tip in his favor, and that a stay is in the public interest.” Humane Soc. of U.S. v. 

9 Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 

10 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). 

11 As explained in this court’s previous order, CERT is not likely to succeed in its claims 

12 that a preliminary injunction is an unconstitutional prior restraint or that it is entitled to summary 

13 judgment under the Noerr–Pennington doctrine. See Prev. Order at 13–20. Nor has CERT 

14 shown that it will suffer irreparable harm. It may resume private enforcement actions under 

15 Proposition 65 if judgment is ultimately entered in its favor or if the preliminary injunction is 

16 dissolved, and it has many other avenues for alerting consumers and the public to the dangers of 

17 acrylamide. Finally, as explained in this court’s previous order, the balance of equities and public 

18 interest favor the narrow preliminary injunction this court has imposed. See id. at 28–31. 

19 The ex parte application for a stay pending appeal is denied. 

20 This order resolves ECF No. 116. 

21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

22 DATED: April 15, 2021. 

Case 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP Document 118 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 2