1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the United 

States, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

4:22-cv-00691-O 

POLYMER80, INC.’S NOTICE REGARDING REMAINING CLAIMS 

 Polymer80, Inc. (“Polymer80”) respectfully submits this notice in response to the Court’s 

order that Polymer80 “file a notice on the docket no later than July 12, 2023, informing the Court 

whether its remaining claims are moot and, if so, proposing an order of Final Judgment as to those 

claims.” (Doc. 231 at 2 n.1). Polymer80’s remaining claims—i.e., challenges to the Open Letter 

and Polymer80 Letter—are not moot. 

 “[A] case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief 

whatever to the prevailing party.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (citation and 

quotation marks omitted); see also Spell v. Edwards, 962 F.3d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 2020) (same). 

Polymer80’s challenges to the Open Letter and Polymer80 Letter are not moot. 

 This Court’s opinion and orders vacating the Final Rule, (see Docs. 227, 231), mooted 

Polymer80’s challenges to the legality of the Final Rule (Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, XII, XIII in part, 

XIV in part, XV, XVI in part, and XVII in part). Mootness may occur when “a statute or regulation 

is amended or repealed after plaintiffs bring a lawsuit challenging the legality of that statute or 

regulation.” Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Abbott, 58 F.4th 824, 832 (5th Cir. 2023) 

(collecting authorities). 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 232 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 4806
2 

 Polymer80 also challenged Defendants’ other administrative actions—the promulgation 

and issuance of the Open Letter and Polymer80 Letter—that have not been vacated, withdrawn, 

amended, or repealed. There remains a “credible threat of prosecution” under the Gun Control Act 

as unlawfully interpreted by the Open Letter and Polymer80 Letter. See Susan B. Anthony List v. 

Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 159 (2014). For those reasons, Polymer80’s challenges to the legality of 

those administrative actions (Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, XI, XIII in part, XIV in part, XVI in part, 

and XVII in part) are not moot. See, e.g., Relf v. Weinberger, 565 F.2d 722, 725–27 (D.C. Cir. 

1977) (holding that agency’s expressions of intent to promulgate new rulemaking proceedings 

mooted challenge). 

This Court can “grant . . . effectual relief” to Polymer80, including declaratory relief and 

injunctive relief vacating and enjoining enforcement of the Open Letter and Polymer80 Letter. See 

Chafin, 568 U.S. at 172. The Open Letter and Polymer80 Letter are unlawful extensions of the 

now-vacated Final Rule, and they should be vacated for the same reasons. (See Doc. 227). Their 

continued existence is a threat to Polymer80’s business and corporate existence. Polymer80’s 

challenges to these additional agency actions present a justiciable controversy. 

 Polymer80 respectfully requests that this Court permit Polymer80 to prosecute its 

remaining claims pursuant to a schedule like that proposed by Polymer80 and Defendants in their 

Joint Report Regarding Contents of Scheduling Order filed in Polymer80 v. Garland, (see Doc. 

32, No. 4:23-cv-00029-O), by ordering Defendants to lodge administrative records of the Open 

Letter and Polymer80 Letter in this action and inviting summary judgment briefing to follow.1 See 

Proposed Scheduling Order attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

1

 Plaintiff’s notice contemporaneously filed in Polymer80 v. Garland respectfully requests that the 

Court stay Polymer80 while Polymer80 prosecutes its remaining claims in this action. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 232 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 4807
3 

Respectfully submitted, 

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 

By: /s/ Dennis L. Daniels Jr. 

DENNIS L. DANIELS JR. 

Texas Bar No. 24107402 

dldaniels@bradley.com

3600 Fountain Place 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone (214) 257-9846 

Facsimile (214) 939-8787 

JAMES W. PORTER III (pro hac vice) 

jporter@bradley.com 

MARC A. NARDONE (pro hac vice) 

mnardone@bradley.com 

One Federal Place 

1819 5th Avenue North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

Telephone (205) 521-8285 

Facsimile (205) 488-6285 

ATTORNEYS FOR POLYMER80, INC. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 232 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 4808
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on July 7, 2023, the foregoing document was served, via the Court’s CM/ECF 

Document Filing System, upon the registered CM/ECF users in this action. 

/s/ Dennis L. Daniels Jr. 

Dennis L. Daniels Jr. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 232 Filed 07/07/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 4809