774 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2014), 13-56445, Vivid Entertainment, LLC v. Fielding

Docket Nº:13-56445
Citation:774 F.3d 566
Opinion Judge:GRABER, Circuit Judge:
Party Name:VIVID ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; CALIFA PRODUCTIONS, INC.; KAYDEN KROSS; and LOGAN PIERCE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JONATHAN FIELDING, Director of Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; JACKIE LACEY, Los Angeles County District Attorney; and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendants-Appellees, and MICHAEL WEINSTEIN; ARLETTE DE LA CRUZ; WHITNEY ENGERAN;
Attorney:Robert Corn-Revere (argued) and Ronald G. London, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Janet L. Grumer and Matthew D. Peterson, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angeles, California; Paul J. Cambria, Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo, New York; and H. Louis Sirkin, Santen & Hughes LP...
Judge Panel:Before: Alex Kozinski and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges, and Jack Zouhary,[*] District Judge. Opinion by Judge Graber.
Case Date:December 15, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
SUMMARY

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the enforcement of the County of Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act ("Measure B"), Los Angeles County, Cal. Code tit. 11, div. 1, ch. 11.39, and amending tit. 22, div. 1, ch. 22.56.1925. Measure B imposes a permitting system and additional production obligations on the makers of adult films, such as requiring performers to wear condoms in certain contexts. The court concluded that it... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 566

774 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2014)

VIVID ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; CALIFA PRODUCTIONS, INC.; KAYDEN KROSS; and LOGAN PIERCE, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JONATHAN FIELDING, Director of Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; JACKIE LACEY, Los Angeles County District Attorney; and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendants-Appellees, and MICHAEL WEINSTEIN; ARLETTE DE LA CRUZ; WHITNEY ENGERAN; MARK MCGRATH; MARIJANE JACKSON; and THE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE YES ON MEASURE B, Intervenors/Defendants-Appellees

No. 13-56445

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 15, 2014

Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California: March 3, 2014.

Page 567

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 568

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 569

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 570

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00190-DDP-AGR. Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding.

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court's order denying, in part, plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the voter-initiated County of Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act (commonly known as Measure B), which imposes a permitting system and additional production obligations on the makers of adult films, including a requirement that performers wear condoms in certain contexts.

Plaintiffs alleged that Measure B's permitting scheme and its condom requirement operate as prior restraints on plaintiffs' ability to create expression, in the form of adult films, which is protected by the First Amendment. In granting partial preliminary injunctive relief, the district court severed one chapter of Measure B in its entirety and severed portions of three other chapters. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision not to enjoin Measure B in full.

The panel held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal whether or not the intervenors-defendants demonstrated Article III standing because plaintiffs had standing, and they alone invoked the federal court's jurisdiction.

The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the invalid portions of Measure B (allowing for modification, suspension, and revocation of permits; authorizing administrative searches; and allowing discretion in setting fees) were severable.

The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to enjoin the enforcement of Measure B's condom mandate. The panel concluded that the condom mandate survived intermediate scrutiny because it was only a de minimis effect on expression, was narrowly tailored to achieve the substantial governmental interest of reducing the rate of sexually transmitted infections, and left open adequate alternative means of expression.

The panel further held that Measure B's requirements that adult film producers complete training about blood-borne pathogens and post a permit during shooting served the County's interest in preventing sexually transmitted infections.

Robert Corn-Revere (argued) and Ronald G. London, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Janet L. Grumer and Matthew D. Peterson, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angeles, California; Paul J. Cambria, Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo, New York; and H. Louis Sirkin, Santen & Hughes LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Thomas R. Freeman (argued) and Mitchell A. Kamin, Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks & Licenberg, P.C., Los Angeles, California; and Tom Myers, Laura Boudreau, Samantha R. Azulay, and Christina Yang, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Los Angeles, California, for Intervenors/Defendants-Appellees.

No appearance for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Alex Kozinski and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges, and Jack Zouhary,[*] District Judge. Opinion by Judge Graber.

OPINION

Page 571

GRABER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Vivid Entertainment, LLC; Califa Productions, Inc.; Kayden Kross; and Logan Pierce are organizations and individuals who make adult films in Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, whose director is a defendant here, sent Plaintiffs a letter stating its intention to enforce the voter-initiated County of Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act (2012) (commonly known as Measure B) (codified at Los Angeles County, Cal., Code tit. 11, div. 1, ch. 11.39, and amending tit. 22, div. 1, ch. 22.56.1925). Measure B imposes a permitting system and additional production obligations on the makers of adult films, including a requirement that performers wear condoms in certain contexts. Plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that Measure B burdens their freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment. Defendant Los Angeles County answered that, although it would enforce the ordinance unless ordered by a court not to, it did not intend to defend Measure B because it took a " position of neutrality" with respect to the ordinance's constitutionality. The official proponents of Measure B intervened to defend it.

The district court issued a preliminary injunction forbidding Defendants from enforcing Measure B's fee-setting provision, which gave Defendants discretion to set fees for permits; a provision that allowed warrantless searches by county health officers of any location suspected of producing adult films; and the broad permit modification, suspension, and revocation process. The court denied preliminary injunctive relief, though, for much of the ordinance, including its condom and permitting requirements. Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision not to enjoin Measure B in full.1 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The citizens of Los Angeles County enacted Measure B in November 2012 by means of the initiative process; it became law on December 14, 2012. The text of the ordinance declared that it was passed in response to documentation by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health of the widespread transmission of sexually transmitted infections among workers in the adult film industry. Under Measure B, producers of adult films2 must obtain a newly designated " public health permit" before shooting an adult film in Los Angeles County.

Under Measure B as enacted, to obtain such a permit, producers of adult films must pay a fee, provide the Department with proof that certain employees have completed a county-approved training program concerning blood-borne pathogens, display the permit while filming, post a notice at the film site that the use of condoms is required, report to the Department any changes in the permitted business, and comply with all applicable laws, including title 8, section 5193 of the California Code of Regulations. Measure B

Page 572

11.39.080, .090, .100, .110. Section 5193 mandates barrier protection for all employees who are exposed to blood-borne pathogens, which Measure B interprets to require condoms for performers who engage in vaginal or anal intercourse. Id. 11.39.090. Measure B also provides that a public health permit may be suspended or revoked, and fines or criminal penalties imposed, for failure to comply with all permitting requirements. Id. 11.39.110. A producer who faces modification, suspension, or revocation of a permit may apply for an undefined form of " administrative review." Id. 11.39.110(C).

In addition to providing for monetary and criminal penalties, Measure B allows enforcement of the permitting requirements through a surprise inspection by a Los Angeles County health officer at " any location suspected of conducting any activity regulated by this chapter." Id. 11.39.130. " [F]or purposes of enforcing this chapter," the health officer " may issue notices and impose fines therein and take possession of any sample, photograph, record or other evidence, including any documents bearing upon adult film producer's compliance with the provision of the chapter." Id. Measure B authorizes the district attorney to bring a civil enforcement action for injunctive relief against any producer who fails to cooperate with the health officer. Id. 11.39.140.

On the day that Measure B took effect, Defendant Department of Public Health mailed Plaintiffs a letter notifying them of the new ordinance and stating that it had established provisional permitting fees of $2,000 to $2,500 per year. Plaintiffs then filed this action challenging Measure B as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.3 Plaintiffs allege that Measure B's permitting scheme and its condom requirement operate as prior restraints on Plaintiffs' ability to create expression, in the form of adult films, which is protected by the First Amendment.

Over Plaintiffs' objection, the district court allowed supporters of Measure B to intervene. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013), Plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider because, they argued, Intervenors lacked Article III standing. The district court denied the motion to reconsider.

The district court granted in part and denied in part Intervenors' motion to dismiss, and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. In granting preliminary injunctive relief, the district court severed one chapter of Measure B in its entirety and severed portions of three other chapters. Appendix A contains Measure B and shows the parts that the district court enjoined and severed.

Plaintiffs timely appeal the denial of complete preliminary injunctive relief.4 They argue that the enjoined provisions are not properly severable, so the likely invalidity of some parts of the ordinance requires enjoining the entire ordinance. In the alternative...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP