I’ve been pretty quiet for some time. Here is why: Hoang v. Bonta, challenging AB 2098

I’ve been pretty quiet for some time. Here is why: Hoang v. Bonta, challenging AB 2098

Thursday afternoon, December 1st, we filed a lawsuit challenging California AB 2098 on behalf of a California osteopathic physician, LeTrinh Hoang, Physicians for Informed Consent, and Children’s Health Defense (California chapter). Here is the complaint: complaint

Bobby K. and Mary Holland are working on the case with me (and my usual compatriots). Mary is working on the preliminary injunction motion as I write this.

We expect to be before a federal judge in mid-January.

Our case is somewhat different from the two prior cases. The first case McDonald v. Lawson has already been dismissed on standing grounds, (with leave to replead). The second one is scheduled to be heard on January 9th but may have the same defect which caused the McDonald case to be dismissed. We’ll see.

The AG’s response papers to the preliminary injunction motion haven’t been filed yet. But it’s the same lawyer as in the McDonald case. So, I would expect the same standing attack to be made in this second case based on what the plaintiffs said (and didn’t or couldn’t say in that complaint). The judge hearing the case has some interesting and positive experience on First Amendment free speech issues. That experience might just help the plaintiffs to get by the standing attack, especially since the plaintiffs’ lawyers are pretty darn good, and they get to reply to the AG’s papers.

In our case, the judge is going to hear from some patients who will explain how the law, even though it is not yet in effect, is adversely affecting their relationship with physicians.

The other huge thing is we’re going to go after the “contemporary scientific consensus” hard, like in 18 single-spaced URL references showing how on all the big issues like vaccine preventing infection, transmission, as well as safety and efficacy, the public health authorities got it wrong initially, and their recommendations were often based more on wishful thinking rather than hard science. To my knowledge, this will be the first time anyone has put all this together in one document. It will be in a declaration to be filed with the preliminary injunction motion to be filed probably tomorrow, so stay tuned for that. I think you will enjoy reading it, as it reads like an scientific indictment (if there were such a thing).

And for me personally, it’s always a treat working with Bobby on a case. I expect him to handle telling the judge the patients’ side of the story, and some more stuff. I can’t think of anyone in the country who has more knowledge, street cred, and passion to do so.

Depending on a couple of things to be worked out, the hearing may be via zoom, so you all will be able to watch it live. I’ll keep you posted. It could be historic.

More as it breaks.

Rick Jaffe

6 thoughts on “I’ve been pretty quiet for some time. Here is why: Hoang v. Bonta, challenging AB 2098



  2. Thank you for taking this case and moving it forward! I am fed up with bureaucrats, including medical boards, coming between the doctor- patient relation. They have absolutely no knowledge of the facts. I’d like to see medical boards restricted to assessing medical qualifications (education, knowledge, practical application) and investigating patient complaints. Enough already!

Leave a Reply