Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00743/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00743-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Azuma Corporation
Defendant
Phillip Del Rosa
Defendant
Wendy Del Rosa
Defendant
Darren Rose
Defendant
State of California
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 Defendants Azuma Corporation, Phillip Del Rosa, Darren Rose and Wendy Del Rosa 

18 move for administrative relief to link the briefing and hearing schedules on plaintiff’s motion for 

19 preliminary injunction and defendants’ forthcoming motion under Federal Rule of Civil 

20 Procedure 12(b). Mot., ECF No. 14. They argue the two motions concern the same issues and 

21 are likely immediately appealable; they note they will seek dismissal for lack of subject matter 

22 jurisdiction. Id. at 2. As a result, they conclude the two motions should be briefed and heard 

23 together, and because the parties have already agreed the Rule 12(b) motion should be filed on 

24 July 17, 2023, they argue their opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction should be 

25 deferred to that date as well, id. at 3. Plaintiff State of California opposes this motion. Opp’n, 

26 ECF No. 16. It argues there is no reason to delay a ruling on whether to enjoin defendants from 

27 continuing to violate federal and state law. Opp’n at 3. For the following reasons, the court 

28 denies defendants’ motion. 

State of California, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Azuma Corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

Case 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-SCR Document 17 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 First, although defendants raise several apparently dispositive issues related to this case, 

2 including the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, see Mot. at 2–3, defendants may raise any or all 

3 of these issues in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. They may argue the 

4 court is without jurisdiction or that Ex parte Young does not apply here. See id. Defendants have 

5 not explained how responding to the motion for preliminary injunction now would forfeit these 

6 arguments. Relatedly, defendants have not explained why, therefore, it is necessary to delay 

7 resolution of the motion for injunctive relief until October 13, 2023. 

8 Second, under Local Rule 230, a party may file a counter-motion “that is related to the 

9 general subject matter of the original motion,” and if necessary, “the Court may continue the 

10 hearing on the original and all related motions so as to give all parties reasonable opportunity to 

11 serve and file oppositions and replies to all pending motions.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(e). As a result, 

12 defendants may file their anticipated Rule 12(b) motion in response to plaintiff’s motion for 

13 injunctive relief. If the parties need more time to adequately brief these issues, then they may 

14 request it at that time. Moreover, if defendants need more time to prepare their opposition and 

15 counter-motion, then they may request it accordingly. But the court will not delay resolution of 

16 the pending motion for injunctive relief as requested, until October 13, 2023, solely on the basis 

17 that defendants intend to file a Rule 12(b) motion in a month’s time. 

18 In sum, the court denies defendants’ motion. 

19 This order resolves ECF No. 14. 

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

21 DATED: June 22, 2023. 

Case 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-SCR Document 17 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 2