1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE NGUYEN, an individual; Case No. 3:20-cv-02470-WQH-MDD 12 DOMINIC BOGUSKI, an individual; JAY MEDINA, an individual; FRANK 13 COLLETTI, an individual; JOHN ORDER PHILLIPS, an individual; PWGG, L.P., 14 a California Limited Partnership; DARIN PRINCE, an individual; 15 NORTH COUNTY SHOOTING CENTER, INC., a California 16 Corporation; FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.; SAN DIEGO 17 COUNTY GUN OWNERS PAC; and SECOND AMENDMENT 18 FOUNDATION,

19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. 21 ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; and 22 LUIS LOPEZ, Director of the Attorney General’s Department of Justice Bureau 23 of Firearms, 24 Defendants. 25 26 HAYES, Judge: 27 On December 18, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Complaint 28 challenging the enforcement of California Penal Code Section 27535, which restricts ] || the purchase of more than one handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle by a single 2 || person within a thirty-day period. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs bring two claims against 3 || Defendants pursuant to

for violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the 4 || Second and Fourteenth Amendments. 5 On April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed respective Motions for 6 || Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 23, 29). Both motions contend that the Court should 7 || apply District of Columbia vy. Heller,

(2008) and the “two-step 8 || framework” articulated by the Court of Appeals in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ Second 9 || Amendment claim. (See ECF Nos. 23-1 at 15-17, ECF No. 29 at 20). 10 On June 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued New York Rifle & 11 || Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen,

,

(2022). The Court finds 12 || that additional briefing regarding the effect of Bruen on the resolution of the parties’ 13 || Motions for Summary Judgment is appropriate. 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each file a 15 || supplemental brief addressing the following questions: 16 1) What standard applies to Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim after Bruen? 17 2) How does that standard apply to resolve the Motions for Summary 18 Judgment (ECF Nos. 23, 29)? 19 || The parties’ supplemental briefs are due on or before July 29, 2022, and are not to 20 || exceed twenty (20) pages in length. On the same date the parties may file any 21 || evidence not already presented to the Court in support of the supplemental briefs. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs and 23 || Defendants may each file a response to the opposing parties’ supplemental brief, not 24 || to exceed ten (10) pages in length. 95 Dated: June 30, 2022 Box Lg 2. A 2 6 Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court 27 28