Gresham

Gresham v. Picker

Good Law
214 F. Supp. 3d 922·2016 WL 5870809
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 7, 2016No. 2:16-cv-01848-JAM-CKDCalifornia4,106 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mendez, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prohibit Defendants from enforcing California’s automatic dialing-announcing device prohibition against Plaintiffs on the grounds that the statute violates the First Amendment. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Victor Gresham is a political consultant who engages in political communications through Plaintiff Conquest Communications Group, LLC, a Virginia based company of which he is a principal. Declaration of Victor Gresham in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Gresham Deck”) ¶ 2. Gresham and his company want to conduct politically related, automated telephone calls in California during the 2016 election cycle. Id. ¶ 3.

Plaintiffs have refrained from conducting politically related automated telephone calls in California, at least since late Spring 2016, due to California Public Utility Code §§ 2872, 2874(a), and 2876 (“ADAD Statute”). Gresham Deck ¶ 3. Plaintiffs have declined to place automated telephone communications for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.