Scholl

Scholl v. Mnuchin

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 20214:20-cv-05309California3,939 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN SCHOLL, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05309-PJH Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

INTERVENE AND DENYING MOTION

STEVEN MNUCHIN, et al., FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 163

13 Before the court are proposed plaintiff-intervenors Jamal Morton and Araclis Ayala’s (“plaintiff-intervenors”) motion to intervene and motion for civil contempt. The matters are fully briefed and suitable for resolution without oral argument. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On August 1, 2020, plaintiffs Colin Scholl and Lisa Strawn (“plaintiffs”) filed a complaint (“Compl.”) in this class action asserting three causes of action: (1) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); (2) violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§…

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.