The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
PIERRE KORY, M.D., LE TRINH No. 2:24-cv-001 WBS AC
13 HOANG, D.O., BRIAN TYSON, M.D.,
PHYSICIANS FOR INFORMED CONSENT,
14 a not-for-profit corporation,
and CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, a ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
15 not-for-profit corporation, SCHEDULE
16 Plaintiffs,
17 v.
18 ROB BONTA, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of
19 California, REJI VARGHESE, in
his official capacity as
20 Executive Director of the
Medical Board of California, and
21 ERIKA CALDERON, in her official
capacity as Executive Officer of
22 the Osteopathic Medical Board of
California,
23
Defendants.
24
25
----oo0oo----
26
In April 2024, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for
27
preliminary injunction (Docket No. 14). (Docket No. 23.)
28
1 Plaintiffs then filed an interlocutory appeal of that ruling at
2
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
3
(Docket No. 24.) In November 2024, a panel of the Ninth Circuit
4
affirmed this court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for
5
preliminary injunction (see Docket Nos. 38, 39); plaintiffs again
6
appealed, seeking review at the Supreme Court of the United
7
States (see Docket No. 40).
8
The parties filed a joint status report (the parties’
9
“JSR”) in May 2026 informing the court that plaintiffs’ petition
10
for certiorari had been denied by the Supreme Court. (Docket No.
11
47 at 1.) The parties further advise the court of their mutual
12
desire to file certain motions. (Id.)
13
Defendants propose filing a motion to dismiss on the
14
grounds that “the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming this Court’s
15
ruling was left undisturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court.” (Id.)
16
Plaintiffs, however, argue that “[t]he Ninth Circuit’s memorandum
17
disposition and this Court’s underlying order have been abrogated
18
by two intervening Supreme Court decisions” -- Chiles v. Salazar,
19
146 S. Ct. 1010 (2026) and First Choice Women’s Res. Centers,
20
Inc. v. Davenport, 146 S. Ct. 1114 (2026) -- and so propose
21
filing a renewed motion for preliminary injunction, and
22
potentially for summary judgment. (Id. at 1—2.)
23
While both plaintiffs and defendants are each prepared
24
to file any motions as early as June 15, 2026, they disagree
25
“regarding the proper next steps.” (Id.) Thus, they request the
26
court determine the best course of action and set a briefing
27
schedule thereto. (Id.)
28
eee II OS EIR I EI EE IEEE IE IGE IEE IEEE
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs SHALL file
their renewed motion for preliminary injunction or motion for
summary judgment on or before June 29, 2026. Defendants may file
their response in opposition no later than July 13, 2026.
° Plaintiffs may file a sur-reply, if they so choose, no later than
° July 20, 2026.
Accordingly, oral argument on the motion(s) will be
heard on Monday, August 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5.
° Personal appearances by counsel are required.
10 The court further ORDERS the July 27, 2026, Scheduling
Conference reset for October 19, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom
5. Personal appearances by counsel are required. The parties
shall file a Joint Status Report with proposed schedule no later
than fourteen days before the Scheduling Conference.
tS IT IS SO ORDERED.
| pated: June 15, 2026 tleom ah. A. be—~
17 WILLIAMB.SHUBB-tst~S
18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28