• Pat Flood (@rebarcock) passed away 9/21/25. Pat played a huge role in encouraging the devolopmemt of this site and donated the very first dollar to get it started. Check the thread at the top of the board for the obituary and please feel free to pay your respects there. I am going to get all the content from that thread over to his family so they can see how many people really cared for Pat outside of what they ever knew. Pat loved to tell stories and always wanted everyone else to tell stories. I think a great way we can honor Pat is to tell a story in his thread (also pinned at the top of the board).

Master Thread Dance Your Cares Away/Fraggle/Law Abiding Citizens

Master Threads
FFi5MFLVQAIQutG
 
Appears false. Ruling below

The defendants have raised certain alternative arguments that need not be addressed. Their ripeness argument is jurisdictional, but in denying preliminary injunctive relief, I have not determined that the court does have jurisdiction. It is plaintiffs’ burden to show the court has jurisdiction, and the nature of their burden depends on the stage of the proceedings. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Because we are still at the pleading stage, and because the complaint itself does not show any lack of ripeness, I have proceeded to consider the motion. Cf. id. Of course, if the plaintiffs could not establish a likelihood that their claims are ripe, they could not show a likelihood of success on the merits. Cf. Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“[A] party who seeks a preliminary injunction must show a substantial likelihood of standing.”). But if they did not, that would only be a basis for denying preliminary injunctive relief—not dismissing the case at this stage. And because I am denying preliminary injunctive relief on other grounds, I have not further addressed ripeness of success on the merits, I need not evaluate the other preliminary injunction factors. The motions (ECF Nos. 3, 10) are DENIED.

An initial scheduling order and an order addressing the plaintiffs request to proceed anonymously (ECF No. 4) will issue separately.

SO ORDERED on November 12, 2021.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge
Yes, but I thought the important part was he made a legal distinction from the BioNTech and Cominarty?
 
But, Uncle Puddin' - you said you had a plan... :rolleyes:

White House: We're exhausted from the coronavirus too​

 

Donate 2025

Current cycle
$0.00
Total amount
$620.00

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom