Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01799/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01799-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REZN8 SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 10-1799 PJH

v. ORDER

EDMUND BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiffs filed the complaint in the above-entitled action on April 27, 2010, and also

filed an application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a request for an order to

show cause re preliminary injunction. On May 12, 2010, the court denied the application

for the TRO and the request for the order to show cause. Also on May 12, 2010, plaintiffs

filed a notice of appeal of the order denying the TRO application. On May 19, 2010, the

Ninth Circuit issued an order directing plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss the appeal or show

cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On May 25, 2010, defendants filed a motion with this court, seeking an order

dismissing the complaint. The motion is presently noticed for hearing on June 30, 2010. 

Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was due on June 9, 2010. Rather than filing an

opposition to defendants’ motion, however, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on

June 11, 2010. Defendants’ reply to the opposition was due on June 16, 2010, but none

was filed. 

The court has not reviewed defendants’ motion, and thus makes no finding as to

Case 4:10-cv-01799-PJH Document 45 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 2
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

whether the first amended complaint resolves the issues raised by defendants. The court

finds, however, that the interests of judicial economy will be better served if defendants

immediately withdraw the motion, and respond instead to the first amended complaint, by

filing responsive pleadings or motions to dismiss no later than 14 days after the Ninth

Circuit determines whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ appeal of

the order denying the TRO application. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01799-PJH Document 45 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2