Last week, a three-judge panel on California's Second District Court of Appeals revived a case brought by a group of Los Angeles firefighters who challenged the City of Los Angeles' Covid-19 vaccine mandate. The decision reversed a lower court's ruling that dismissed the case because the judge found the firefighters' allegations regarding the safety and efficacy of the Covid shots implausible, ignoring the settled rule that, at the pleading stage, judges must accept all factual allegations as true. The appellate court's 53-page opinion marks a pivotal moment in the fallout from Covid policy. In a California state court, a plaintiff who pays the filing fee and alleges facts that, assumed to be true, state any plausible claim, gets to gather evidence and present that evidence to a judge or jury. The appellate court criticized the judge's efforts to circumvent California's pleading rules in taking judicial notice that the Covid shots are "Safe and effective." The appellate court noted that "The court did not explain what it meant by 'safe' or 'effective.'". Many of the government documents the City of L.A. had relied on in the case said public health officials did not know how effective the Covid shots would be, especially against the omicron variant, much less future Covid variants. As to the shots' safety, the court of appeal explained that "The documents the trial court judicially noticed repeatedly stated the vaccines were 'safe,' but they also acknowledged 'common side effects' and 'rare' but 'serious safety problems.'" https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/27/court-reversal-on-covid-vaccine-mandates-provides-a-roadmap-for-fighting-medical-tyranny/

 Last week, a three-judge panel on California's Second District Court of Appeals revived a case brought by a group of Los Angeles firefighters who challenged the City of Los Angeles' Covid-19 vaccine mandate.

The decision reversed a lower court's ruling that dismissed the case because the judge found the firefighters' allegations regarding the safety and efficacy of the Covid shots implausible, ignoring the settled rule that, at the pleading stage, judges must accept all factual allegations as true.

The appellate court's  53-page opinion marks a pivotal moment in the fallout from Covid policy.

In a California state court, a plaintiff who pays the filing fee and alleges facts that, assumed to be true, state any plausible claim, gets to gather evidence and present that evidence to a judge or jury.

The appellate court criticized the judge's efforts to circumvent California's pleading rules in taking judicial notice that the Covid shots are "Safe and effective." The appellate court noted that "The court did not explain what it meant by 'safe' or 'effective.'".

Many of the government documents the City of L.A. had relied on in the case said public health officials did not know how effective the Covid shots would be, especially against the omicron variant, much less future Covid variants.

As to the shots' safety, the court of appeal explained that "The documents the trial court judicially noticed repeatedly stated the vaccines were 'safe,' but they also acknowledged 'common side effects' and 'rare' but 'serious safety problems.'"

https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/27/court-reversal-on-covid-vaccine-mandates-provides-a-roadmap-for-fighting-medical-tyranny/