Point 8, page 11 (pdf page 20):
8. Plaintiff-Appellant ENOS has an additional (third) reason he should be free from LAUTENBERG’S prohibition. He not only qualifies for restoration of his rights under the 10-year rule and the defective-waiver rule, but he is the only Plaintiff who applied for – and was granted – relief under California’s specific statutory remedy for judicial restoration of his firearms rights.
IIRC, plaintiff Enos, was the only plaintiff that was granted a refiling under the first MTD, because of this.
Of course, I could be wrong on what I remember as having read.