Video Software Dealers Association et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 29

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 19 Ex Parte Application to continue hearing to December 9, 2005 (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2005)

Download PDF
Video Software Dealers Association et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 29 Case 5:05-cv-04188-RMW Document 29 Filed 11/10/2005 Page 1 of 3 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 Defendants George Kennedy, Santa Clara County District Attorney, and Ann Ravel, Santa Clara County Counsel (the "county defendants"), move to continue the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction from December 2 to December 9, 2005. The court reluctantly grants the motion. On October 7, 2005, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, signed into law Assembly Bill 1179, which is to take effect on January 1, 2006, and will restrict the sale and rental of certain violent ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUEHEARING ON PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION--No. C-05-04188 RMW JAH E-FILED on 11/10/05 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION VIDEO SOFTWARE DEALERS ASSOCIATION, and ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; BILL LOCKYER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; GEORGE KENNEDY, in his official capacity as Santa Clara County District Attorney; RICHARD DOYLE, in his official capacity as City Attorney for the City of San Jose; and ANN MILLER RAVEL, in her official capacity as County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara, Defendants. No. C-05-04188 RMW ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Re Docket No. 19, 20] Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:05-cv-04188-RMW Document 29 Filed 11/10/2005 Page 2 of 3 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 video games to minors. On October 17, the plaintiffs filed a complaint, and two days later, a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent enforcement of this new law. When plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary injunction, the briefing schedule was set. The county defendants state that the attorney who is handling this matter for them, Kathryn J. Zoglin, is unavailable on December 2, 2005, and thus request the hearing date be continued to December 9. The other defendants do not oppose this request, but the plaintiffs do. The plaintiffs claim that they will have insufficient time to either appeal an adverse decision of this court or comply with the new law if the hearing is continued a week. While cognizant of the position the plaintiffs are in, as well as their diligence in prosecuting the case, the court feels that justice requires it to accommodate Ms. Zoglin's schedule. The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is continued to December 9, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. DATED: 11/10/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUEHEARING ON PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION--No. C-05-04188 RMW JAH 2 Case 5:05-cv-04188-RMW Document 29 Filed 11/10/2005 Page 3 of 3 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 Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiffs: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. Amy L. Tenney Ethan D. Dettmer H. Mark Lyon Katherine A. Fallow Paul M. Smith Counsel for Defendants: Zackery P. Morazzini Kathryn J. Zoglin zackery.morazzini@doj.ca.gov kathryn_zoglin@mail.cco.co.santa-clara.ca.us edettmer@gibsondunn.com mlyon@gibsondunn.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 11/10/05 /s/ JH Chambers of Judge Whyte ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUEHEARING ON PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION--No. C-05-04188 RMW JAH 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?