Jackson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 37

ORDER RE: 29 GRANTING MOTION TO LIFT STAY. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 09/13/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2010)

Jackson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Doc. 37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

**E-filed 09/13/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ESPANOLA JACKSON, et al., v. Plaintiffs, No. C 09-2143 RS ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO LIFT STAY

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ In this action challenging the constitutionality of the City and County of San Francisco's gun control ordinances, the parties previously stipulated to a stay, pending the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Nordyke v. King, No. 07-15763. In the interim, the United States Supreme Court has decided McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), which held that that Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this is the primary question the parties were expecting the Nordyke en banc decision to resolve, defendants contend the stay should nevertheless remain in place because the Nordyke decision may shed further light on additional issues such as the standard of review to be applied when evaluating the constitutionality of gun control ordinances. The possibility that the Nordyke decision may provide some relevant guidance or rules of law is insufficient to warrant a continued stay. It would be an unworkable rule to stay district court

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

litigation every time an appellate court has under consideration some issue relevant thereto. This is unlike the incorporation issue for which the stay was initially imposed. In that instance, the matter (1) was entirely dispositive of whether plaintiffs could bring a claim in the first instance, and (2) appeared certain to be decided one way or the other by the en banc panel. Accordingly, the motion to lift the stay is granted. Pursuant to the August 27, 2009 minute order imposing the stay, defendants shall respond to the amended complaint within 20 days of the date of this order.1

Dated: 09/13/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

Either party may seek consolidation of this action with Pizzo v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., C09-4493 CW by duly-noticed motion or by stipulation. 2