Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01464/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01464-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

OPTOMETRISTS & OPTICIANS;

LENSCRAFTERS, INC; and EYE NO. CIV. S-02-1464 LKK/DAD

CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BILL LOCKYER, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General

of the State of California; and

CHARLENE ZETTEL, in her official O R D E R

capacity as Director of the

Department of Consumer Affairs,

Defendants.

 /

Pending on the court’s February 5, 2007, law and motion

calendar is a motion to stay filed by defendants in the above

captioned case. The court is considering issuing a stay for

thirty (30) days, at which point, defendants may seek an

additional stay from the Ninth Circuit. At oral argument on

the matter, counsel should be prepared to address the following:

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK -DAD Document 444 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 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

2

1. In light of the recent decision in People v. Cole, 38

Cal. 4th 964 (2006), what is the current status of the

Knox-Keene plan arrangements? Are plaintiffs

continuing to operate under the Knox-Keene plan? How,

if at all, has Cole affected the status quo for

optical companies that have partnered with

optometrists? 

2. What are the parties’ thoughts on the court’s proposed

course of action, to wit, granting a thirty (30) day

stay, at which point, defendants may seek an

additional stay from the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 24, 2007.

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK -DAD Document 444 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2