Order Regarding Motion Briefing — East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr (N.D. Cal.)

Summary

An Order Regarding Motion Briefing dated November 4, 2020, filed as Document 120 in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. William Barr, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04073-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relating to ECF No. 118. The court states that it received Proposed Intervenors' request for clarification of the briefing schedule for the pending motion to intervene and for preliminary injunction, and the Government's opposition at ECF No. 119. It states that Proposed Intervenors' October 26, 2020 reply brief fully addressed the issues raised in both motions, and concludes that no further briefing is necessary or authorized. The signature block names United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

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 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, 
et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
 
WILLIAM BARR, et al., 
Defendants. 
Case No. 19-cv-04073-JST   
 
 
ORDER REGARDING MOTION 
BRIEFING 
Re: ECF No. 118 
 
 
The Court has received Proposed Intervenors’ request for clarification concerning the 
briefing schedule for the pending motion to intervene and for preliminary injunction, which 
requests the opportunity to file a reply brief in support of the motion for intervention.  ECF No. 
118.  The Court has also received the Government’s opposition.  ECF No. 119.   
Proposed Intervenors’ October 26, 2020 reply brief fully addressed the issues raised in 
both their motion to intervene and their motion for preliminary injunction, including whether 
Proposed Intervenors satisfy Rule 24(a) or 24(b) as well as whether the Court has subject matter 
jurisdiction over Intervenors’ claims, both for purposes of permitting intervention and for purposes 
of granting a preliminary injunction.  Thus, the Court concludes that no further briefing is 
necessary or authorized.   
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated:  November 4, 2020 
______________________________________ 
JON S. TIGAR 
United States District Judge 
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 120   Filed 11/04/20   Page 1 of 1

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.344869.120.0.pdf

Size

102,227 bytes

SHA-256

620e54cf92e4814e453b1681ddf7897e3dd64e23ca26c282ebc88d8adf0a2172

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.344869.120.0.pdf

Original

archive.org