1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General Civil Divis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 2 Filed 09/30/18 Page 1 of 3 JOSEPH H. HUNT 1 Assistant Attorney General 2 Civil Division MCGREGOR SCOTT 3 United States Attorney BRINTON LUCAS 4 Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General 5 JAMES J. GILLIGAN Acting Director, Federal Programs Branch 6 JACQUELINE COLEMAN SNEAD 7 Assistant Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch DAVID SHELLEDY 8 Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney JOSEPH BORSON (Va. Bar No. 85519) 9 KEVIN SNELL (NY Bar) 10 Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice 11 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L St. NW 12 Washington, DC 20530 13 Telephone: (202) 305-0924 Fax: (202) 616-8460 14 E-mail: [email protected] 15 Attorneys for the United States 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 19 Plaintiff, Case No. 20 v. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 21 FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; 22 EDMUND GERALD BROWN JR., 23 Governor of California, in his Official Capacity, and XAVIER BECERRA, 24 Attorney General of California, in his 25 Official Capacity, 26 Defendants. 27 28 Notice of motion and motion Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 2 Filed 09/30/18 Page 2 of 3 NOTICE 1 Notice is hereby given that the United States of America makes the following motion, 2 which it proposes to notice for a hearing on a date 28 days from the date of service or as soon 3 4 thereafter as the matter can be heard at a yet to be determined courtroom. 5 MOTION 6 The United States hereby moves for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of 7 certain provisions of the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 8 2018, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3100-3104, enacted through Senate Bill 822. As detailed in the 9 accompanying proposed order, the United States respectfully requests that this Court preliminary 10 enjoin Section 3100(j), (r), (t) and Section 3101(a)(1)-(a)(7), (a)(9) of the California Civil Code. 11 The United States also respectfully requests that this Court preliminarily enjoin the application of 12 those provisions through Section 3101(b) of the California Civil Code. Further, the United 13 States respectfully requests that this Court preliminarily enjoin Section 3102(a), (b) of the 14 California Civil Code. 15 This motion is based on the memorandum filed herewith, and the pleadings on file. 16 17 Dated: September 30, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 18 19 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General 20 Civil Division 21 McGREGOR SCOTT 22 United States Attorney 23 BRINTON LUCAS Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General 24 JAMES J. GILLIGAN 25 Acting Director, Federal Programs Branch 26 JACQUELINE COLEMAN SNEAD 27 Assistant Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch 28 DAVID SHELLEDY Notice of motion and motion -1- Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 2 Filed 09/30/18 Page 3 of 3 Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney 1 2 /s/ Kevin Snell__________ JOSEPH BORSON (Va. Bar No. 85519) 3 KEVIN SNELL (NY Bar) Trial Attorneys 4 U.S. Department of Justice 5 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L St. NW 6 Washington, DC 20530 7 Telephone: (202) 305-0924 Fax: (202) 616-8460 8 E-mail: [email protected] 9 Attorneys for the United States 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of motion and motion -2- Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 2-1 Filed 09/30/18 Page 1 of 28 JOSEPH H. HUNT 1 Assistant Attorney General 2 MCGREGOR SCOTT United States Attorney 3 BRINTON LUCAS Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General 4 JAMES J. GILLIGAN 5 Acting Director, Federal Programs Branch JACQUELINE COLEMAN SNEAD 6 Assistant Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch 7 DAVID SHELLEDY Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney 8 JOSEPH BORSON (Va. Bar No. 85519) KEVIN SNELL (NY Bar) 9 Trial Attorneys 10 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 11 1100 L St. NW Washington, DC 20530 12 Tel. (202) 305-0924 13 [email protected] 14 Attorneys for the United States 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 19 Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; 22 OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EDMUND GERALD BROWN JR., PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 23 Governor of California, in his Official Capacity; and XAVIER BECERRA, 24 Attorney General of California, in his Official Capacity, 25 26 Defendants. 27 28 Memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 2-1 Filed 09/30/18 Page 2 of 28 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 2 4 I. History of Federal Internet Regulation .............................................................................. 2 5 A. Broadband Internet Access Service ...................................................................... 2 6 B. The Commission’s Historic Approach to Internet Regulation .............................. 3 7 8 C. The 2015 Order ...................................................................................................... 4 9 D. The 2018 Order ...................................................................................................... 6 10 II. California’s Internet Regulation Law .............................................................................. 10 11 LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................. 12 12 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 13 13 14 I. The United States is Likely to Prevail on the Merits. ...................................................... 13 15 A. The 2018 Order preempts virtually all of SB-822. ............................................. 13 16 B. The Court must presume the validity of the 2018 Order in this proceeding. ....... 16 17 II. The Equitable Factors Strongly Militate in Favor of Injunctive Relief. .......................... 18 18 A. SB-822’s enforcement would irreparably harm the government and the 19 public interest. ...................................................................................................... 18 20 B. A preliminary injunction would not cause California any harm.......................... 20 21 22 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memorandum in support of motion - i - for preliminary injunction Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 2-1 Filed 09/30/18 Page 3 of 28 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 CASES 3 California v. FCC, 4 75 F.3d 1350 (9th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................... 9 5 Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC, 6 883 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 17 7 CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Bus. Media, Inc., 606 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................... 17 8 9 Charter Advanced Servs. (MN), LLC v. Lange, No. 17-2290, 2018 WL 4260322 (8th Cir. Sept. 7, 2018) .................................................... 9, 15 10 City of New York v. FCC, 11 486 U.S. 57 (1988) .................................................................................................................... 13 12 Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 13 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................... 4 14 FCC v. ITT World Commc’ns, Inc., 15 466 U.S. 463 (1984) .................................................................................................................. 16 16 Federal Home Loan Bank Board v. Empie, 778 F.2d 1447 (10th Cir. 1985) .......................................................................................... 19, 20 17 18 Fober v. Mgm’t & Tech. Consultants, LLC, 886 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 16 19 20 Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 9 21 Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 22 768 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 17 23 Minnesota Pub. Utilities Comm’n v. FCC, 24 483 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 6, 9 25 Nack v. Walburg, 26 715 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 17 27 National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) ................................................................................................................ 3, 4 28 Memorandum in support of motion - ii - for preliminary injunction Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 2-1 Filed 09/30/18 Page 4 of 28 New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 1 491 U.S. 350 (1989) .................................................................................................................