As you know, our case, Hoang v. Bonta, together with the related case of Hoeg v. Newsom had some recent success before Judge Schubb, by his enjoining the enforcement of AB 2098 (now section 2270 of the Business and Professional Code). His decision was limited to the parties of the two cases, meaning the five docs in Hoeg, our lead plaintiff Le Trinh Hoang, but also included are all the members of our organizational Plaintiffs, Physicians for Informed Consent and Children’s Health Defense, California chapter. So, if you’re a doc wanting immunization from Section 2270 Board investigations, join these groups. (Join both for what the infectious disease and public health folks call “layers of protection” from the toxic insult.)
The rub is that a judge in the Central District had previously denied a motion for the same relief in McDonald v. Lawson. The McDonald Plaintiffs are appealing that judge’s decision.
There had been a fourth case and preliminary injunction motion which was supposed to be heard on February 2nd before a judge in the Southern District. However, that judge removed the motion from the docket and stayed that case pending the possibly dispositive decision by the 9th Circuit in the McDonald appeal. (The Southern District case is called Couris v Lawson).
Well, if this Southern District judge thinks that a 9th circuit decision in the McDonald appeal could be dispositive of the case before him (i.e. he could throw the case out if the 9th affirmed the judge who denied the preliminary injunction in the McDonald case), then it might also be dispositive against Judge Shubb’s decision as well.
That’s what I would call a legal problem, and frankly, it’s one I just couldn’t live with.
So, we did something which might raise an eyebrow or two: We moved to intervene in the McDonald appeal. That is necessary because for whatever reason, the Attorney General’s office has decided not to appeal our related cases (Hoang and Hoeg). I have some ideas about why I think they’re not appealing our cases, I quite bluntly gave my thoughts about that to the 9th Circuit.
So we’re shaking things up, and we are at least giving the 9th the opportunity to consider the evidentiary record in our case which supports Judge Shubb’s decision.
Here is what we’ve filed.
One way or the other, it’s going to get really interesting, real fast.
There will be more posts about our intervention motion, and some out-of-the-box community support may be required, so stay tuned.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.