1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN Case No. 22-cv-00501-BLF RIGHTS, INC., et al., 8 ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED Plaintiffs, CASES 9 v. 10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS Case No. 22-cv-02365-BLF 13 ASSOCIATION, et al., 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v.

16 CITY OF SAN JOSE, 17 Defendant.

18 19 On April 20, 2022, the Court issued Orders to Show Cause Why Cases Should Not Be 20 Consolidated in both of the above referenced cases. Order to Show Cause, No. 22-cv-00501-BLF, 21 ECF No. 52; Order to Show Cause, No. 22-cv-02365-BLF, ECF No. 6. 22 Plaintiffs National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. and Mark Sikes (collectively, “NAGR 23 Plaintiffs”) have not opposed consolidation, so long as it does not delay the Court’s decision on 24 their motion for preliminary injunction, which the Court has already issued. See NAGR Pls.’ 25 Response to Order to Show Cause, No. 22-cv-00501, ECF No. 54. Plaintiffs in Case No. 22-cv- 26 02365 (“HJTA Plaintiffs”) have objected to consolidation to the extent it would add delay and 27 expense to their case by requiring an evidentiary trial. See HJTA Pls.’ Response to Order to Show 1 and take the position that the cases should be consolidated for all purposes. See Defs.’ Response 2 to Order to Show Cause, No. 22-cv-00501, ECF No. 53; Response to Order to Show Cause, No. 3 || 22-cv-02365, ECF No. 14. 4 “Tf actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may ... 5 consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The “district court has broad discretion under this 6 || rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 7 for Cent. Dist. of California,

, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, these two cases share 8 several common questions of both law and fact. Both NAGR Plaintiffs and HJTA Plaintiffs assert 9 || claims arising under the First Amendment and article XIII C of the California Constitution. See 10 || First Amended Complaint (““NAGR Compl.”) §§ 106-115, 122-133, No. 22-cv-00501, ECF No. 11 19; Complaint (““HJTA Compl.”) ff 9-19, 24-31, No. 22-cv-02365, ECF No. 1. More broadly, 12 || both sets of plaintiffs seek to enjoin or invalidate portions of the City of San Jose’s recent gun 13 harm ordinance. See NAGR Compl. at 25; HJTA Compl. at 8. Regarding HJTA Plaintiffs’ 14 || concerns of delays from an evidentiary trial, they are free to seek relief and accommodation under 3 15 a consolidated case should the need arise; however, these concerns do not outweigh the substantial a 16 administrative benefits from consolidation at the present stage in the proceedings, given these 3 17 cases’ significant overlap. 18 Accordingly, the Court CONSOLIDATES Case Nos. 22-cv-00501 and 22-cv-02365 for all 19 || purposes. For administrative purposes, the docket in the later-filed case, No. 22-cv-02365, shall 20 || be closed. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: September 30, 2022 23 kop Lh / gma BETH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28