Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_17-cv-08263/USCOURTS-azd-3_17-cv-08263-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

Mikkel Jordahl, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Mark Brnovich, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-08263-PCT-DJH

ORDER 

This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 27, 

2018, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and enjoined 

Defendants from enforcing A.R.S. § 35-393.01(A) (“the Act”), an Arizona statute that 

prohibited public entities from contracting with companies that engage in “boycott[s] of 

Israel.” (Doc. 63). Defendants appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

(Doc. 65). While that appeal was pending, the Arizona Legislature amended portions of 

the Act with Senate Bill 1167 (“the revised Act”). The revised Act took effect in August 

2019 and effectively exempts Plaintiffs from its terms.1 Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit 

found that Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot. (Doc. 85-1). 

In its Memorandum Decision, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and 

remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and 

1 The revised Act now only applies to (1) companies with ten or more full-time employees, 

and (2) contracts valued at $100,000 or more. See S.B. 1167, 54th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess

(Ariz. 2019); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 35-393(2), 35-393.01(A). 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 86 Filed 01/28/20 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

injunctive relief. 2 (Id.) In accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s instructions, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are 

moot and therefore are DISMISSED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this case and 

enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 28th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

2 As the Ninth Circuit noted, this Court will retain jurisdiction to determine whether an 

award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Watson v. Cty of 

Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 86 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 2