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 

NOT AN LLC D/B/A JSD SUPPLY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL 

Intervenor Plaintiff Not An LLC d/b/a JSD Supply (“JSD Supply”) files this reply to the 

government’s response to its motion for an injunction pending appeal. 

Argument

The government’s opposition asserts that this Court “may well” lack jurisdiction to 

entertain JSD Supply’s Motion (ECF #242 at 3), but then admits that this Court has authority to 

“issue injunctive relief pending an appeal” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). Although the 

government is “unclear” on the issue (ECF #242 at 1), the federal rules are quite clear. The 

pertinent language from Rule 62(d) states:

While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that 

grants, continues, modifies, refuses, dissolves, or refuses to dissolve or modify an 

injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms 

for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party’s rights. 

JSD Supply did not receive an injunction in this Court, and therefore this Court “refuse[d]” 

to grant the injunction (because it granted final relief and thus, mooted JSD Supply’s motion). 

Thus, this Court can now, “[w]hile an appeal is pending ... grant an injunction” pursuant to Rule 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 244 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 4939
2 

62(d), that applies to JSD Supply. An injunction pending appeal to protect JSD Supply is warranted 

for all the reasons the Court granted the injunctions for other plaintiffs and intervenors, and 

ultimately, granted summary judgment vacating the Final Rule.

At this point, it is clear that the government believes itself unconstrained of any injunction 

applying the Final Rule against anyone (see Opposition, discussing preliminary injunction being 

effective until final judgment, p. 2), even after losing in this Court. Although the government

recites a litany of harms that would befall it if unable to enforce the Final Rule, none of those apply 

with respect to the parties in this case, some of whom already have been covered by injunctive 

relief (and all of whom should be again while proceedings continue). Doing so would in no way 

“amend or vacate the order” currently on appeal, as the government claims. ECF #242 at 3.

Conclusion

JSD Supply requests this Court grant its motion, ordering that Defendants and their 

officers, agents, servants, and employees are enjoined from implementing and enforcing against 

JSD Supply and its customers (except for those individuals prohibited from possessing firearms 

under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 478.12 that the Court has 

preliminarily determined are unlawful. 

Dated: July 20, 2023 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Mark Brewer 

J. MARK BREWER

Texas Bar No. 02965010 

800 Bering Dr., Suite 201 

Houston, TX 77057 

Phone: (713) 209-2910 

brewer@bplaw.com 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 244 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 4940
3 

MATTHEW J. SMID

Texas Bar No. 24063541 

301 Commerce Street, Suite 2001 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Phone: (817) 332-3822 

Fax: (817) 332-2763 Fax 

matt@mattsmidlaw.com

Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff Not an LLC, 

dba JSD Supply 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July 20, 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/ J. Mark Brewer 

J. Mark Brewer

 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 244 Filed 07/20/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 4941