Bryant
Bryant v. Newsom
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DANA BRYANT, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03243-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
v. DISMISS
SUNDARI MASE, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 23 Defendants.
The motions to dismiss are granted because the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Most importantly, the Bryants do not plausibly allege that the measures taken in response to the Covid-19 pandemic “exceed[]” the “broad” authority and “latitude” of county and local officials to answer the “dynamic and fact-intensive” question of how to enact pandemic-related restrictions. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newson, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613-14 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring); see Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Mass., 197 U.S. 11, 31 (1905); Altman v. County of Santa Clara, 2020 WL 2850291, at *7-12 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020); Six v. Newson, 2020 WL 2896543, at *3-7 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2020). And more generally, the Bryants do not appear to have made any meaningful effort to analyze which claims could conceivably be viable; instead, they have tossed in any…