Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06008/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06008-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ROBERT LARRY EDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

L. RYAN BRODDRICK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-06008 JSW

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

AND REQUIRING FURTHER

BRIEFING

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, currently set to be

heard on October 27, 2006. In opposition to this motion, Defendants argue that the Court

should abstain from adjudicating this motion and dismiss the entire matter pursuant to the

Younger doctrine. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court espoused a

strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings,

absent extraordinary circumstances. H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000);

Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). The Court must

resolve the threshold Younger abstention issue because, if the Court “is required to abstain

under Younger and dismiss the suit, then it has no authority to rule on a party’s motion for a

preliminary injunction.” See Meredith v. Oregon, 321 F.3d 807, 816 (9th Cir. 2003). 

“Abstention is required when: ‘(i) the state proceedings are ongoing; (ii) the proceedings

implicate important state interests; and (iii) the state proceedings provide an adequate

opportunity to raise federal questions.’” Delta Dental Plan of California, Inc. v. Mendoza, 139

F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

Case 3:06-cv-06008-JSW Document 30 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

To ensure that the parties have a full opportunity to brief, and the Court has an

opportunity to consider, whether this Court should abstain and dismiss this matter pursuant to

the Younger doctrine, the Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a

preliminary injunction to December 1, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that

the parties file briefing on the application of Younger doctrine as follows:

(1) Defendants shall file an opening brief in support of their position that the Court

should dismiss this matter by no later than November 7, 2006;

(2) Plaintiffs shall file their opposition, if any, by no later than November 17, 2006;

and

(3) Defendants shall file their reply, if any, by no later than November 22, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06008-JSW Document 30 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2