Association for Accessible Medicines v. Becerra ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASSOCIATION FOR ACCESSIBLE No. 2:19-cv-02281-TLN-DB MEDICINES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 XAVIER BECERRA, in his Official 15 Capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 On December 31, 2019, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff Association for 20 Accessible Medicines’s (“AAM”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10), seeking to 21 enjoin the enforcement of Assembly Bill 824. (ECF No. 29.) The Court’s Order denying 22 preliminary injunction relied at least in part on finding certain of AAM’s claims not ripe for 23 review. (See id.) 24 AAM filed an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s Order, and on July 27, 2020, the Ninth 25 Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum vacating the Order and remanding with 26 instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice. (ECF No. 46, USCA Memorandum.) The 27 circuit panel noted that “[t]he doctrines of standing and ripeness originate from the same Article 28 III limitation and boil down to the same question,” (id. at 2, citing Susan B. Anthony List v. 1 Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157 n.5 (2014)) and found AAM lacked standing to bring the present 2 action because it “has not shown that there is a ‘substantial risk’ that AB 824 will cause its 3 members to suffer injury that is concrete, particularized, and imminent.” (Id. at 3, citing Clapper 4 v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 414 n.5.) 5 Pursuant to the Memorandum and Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6 Ninth Circuit (ECF Nos. 46, 47), the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the 7 Court is directed to close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: August 25, 2020 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28