Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03199/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03199-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMMITTEE ON JOBS CANDIDATE

ADVOCACY FUND and BUILDING

OWNERS AND MANAGERS

ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DENNIS J. HERRERA, KAMALA D.

HARRIS, the SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS

COMMISSION and CITY AND COUNTY OF

SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-03199 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 AT 1:30 P.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing, preferably by Friday, September 14, 2007 at

2:30 p.m., and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional

authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument

or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the

opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Case 3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document 31 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.

The parties shall each have 25 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Plaintiffs claim to be irreparably harmed by the passage of Proposition O. Why did

Plaintiffs wait seven years, and several elections, to challenge the constitutionality of the

Ordinance? Although the deprivation of guaranteed First Amendment rights constitutes

irreparable harm, why did Plaintiffs wait until weeks before the upcoming election to

move for an injunction? What, if any, are the legal consequences of the delay?

2. One core issue in this matter is the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny to be applied to

the Ordinance. 

a. Both Defendants and Amici Curiae argue that the Ordinance only

restricts the source and individual amount of donations to political

committees and that Plaintiffs may increase their independent

expenditures merely by increasing their donor base. How do Defendants

and Amici Curiae respond to the Supplemental Declaration of Nathan

Nayman, which states that the JOBS’ by-laws restrict the number of

members to 50 or fewer and that to solicit funds more widely would

dramatically change the membership, organizational structure and

mission of the committee? How do Defendants distinguish the holding in

Lincoln Club v. City of Irvine, 292 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2002)?

b. Both Judges Ware and Jenkins applied strict scrutiny to enjoin limits

similar to the ones at issue here. Why should the Court not be persuaded

by the reasoning in the opinions within its own district that applied strict

scrutiny and that enjoined similar city ordinances?

c. Beside the increase in limitations amounts, how was the Ordinance

changed to remedy the problems addressed in Judge Wilken’s 1999 order

granting a preliminary injunction on the first iteration of the subject

legislation? How do these changes remedy the constitutional infirmities

addressed in her order?

d. Isn’t the holding in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003),

distinguishable because the Court there was addressing the possibility of

corruption by “soft money” contributions made directly to political

parties, not, as here, to independent expenditure committees?

e. Although the newspaper articles submitted are not evidence of actual

political corruption, are they sufficient to establish the City’s interest in

protecting the political system from the appearance of or potential for

corruption? Are the newspaper articles admissible as evidence of

anything at all?

f. Do Defendants maintain that the Ordinance would pass constitutional

muster under the strict scrutiny standard of review? 

3. If the Court adopts its tentative ruling and grant the preliminary injunction, do

Defendants object to waiving the bond or object to the Court imposing a minimal bond? 

See Cupolo v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1086 (N.D. Cal., 1997). If

the Court were to impose a bond, what do Defendants contend is the appropriate

amount?

Case 3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document 31 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document 31 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 3