Ass'n for Accessible Meds. v. Bonta

Ass'n for Accessible Meds. v. Bonta

Opinion

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Rob Bonta's, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California ("Defendant" or the "State"), Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff Association for Accessible Medicine ("Plaintiff") filed an opposition. (ECF No. 44.) The State filed a reply. (ECF No. 46.) For the reasons set forth [*2]  below, the State's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The Court need not recount the background facts of this case as they are set forth fully in its December 9, 2021 Order. (ECF No. 42.) On January 6, 2022, the State filed the instant motion to modify the preliminary injunction ("PI"), requesting the Court modify the injunction to permit AB 824's in-state application and only prohibit the Attorney General from enforcing AB 824 against settlements with no connection to California. (See ECF Nos. 43, 43-1.) On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 44.) On February 3, 2022, the State filed a reply. (ECF No. 46.)

II. Standard of Law

"The power of a court of equity to modify a decree of injunctive relief is long-established, broad, and flexible, and when it invokes equity's power to remedy a constitutional violation by an injunction mandating systemic changes to an institution[, it] has the continuing duty and responsibility to address the efficacy and consequences of its order." Chatman v. Otani, No. 21-00268 JAO-KJM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152155, 2021 WL 4892311, at *1 (D. Haw. Aug. 18, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 542, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 179 L. Ed. 2d 969 (2011)). The burden is on the party seeking to modify the injunction to establish there has been a significant [*3]  change in facts or law to warrant the modification. Id. "This 'requirement presumes that the moving party could have appealed the grant of the injunction but chose not to do so, and thus that a subsequent challenge to the injunctive relief must rest on grounds that could not have been raised before.'" Id. (quoting Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2013)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 54(b) provides in part that "any order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." "Rule 54(b) reflects a district court's 'inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke' its own orders before they become final." SEC v. Schooler, No. 3:12-cv-2164-GPC-JMA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134407, 2013 WL 5308299, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013) (quoting United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2008)). Courts will grant a motion to modify a preliminary injunction if: "(1) the movant presents the court with newly discovered evidence; (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law." Id.; see also Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp., No. C 12-2582 CW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155512, 2012 WL 5373377, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2012); CFTC v. Robert D. Bame & Forward Inv. Group, LLC, No. CV 08-05593 RGK (PLAx), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135114, 2009 WL 10675779, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2009).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.