Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale

• Decision Date: 04 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–15408.,14–15408.
• Citation: 779 F.3d 991
• Parties: Leonard FYOCK; Scott Hochstetler; William Douglas; David Pearson; Brad Seifers; Rod Swanson, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. City of SUNNYVALE; The Mayor of Sunnyvale; Anthony Spitaleri, in his official capacity; The Chief of the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety; Frank Grgurina, in his official capacity, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

779 F.3d 991

Leonard FYOCK; Scott Hochstetler; William Douglas; David Pearson; Brad Seifers; Rod Swanson, Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.City of SUNNYVALE; The Mayor of Sunnyvale; Anthony Spitaleri, in his official capacity; The Chief of the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety; Frank Grgurina, in his official capacity, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 14–15408.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 17, 2014.

Filed March 4, 2015.

Erin E. Murphy (argued), Bancroft PLLC, Washington, D.C.; C.D. Michel, Glenn S. McRoberts, Clinton B. Monfort, Sean A. Brady and Anna M. Barvir, Michel & Associates, P.C., Long Beach, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.

Roderick M. Thompson (argued), Anthony P. Schoenberg and Rochelle L. Woods, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants–Appellees.

Robert C. Wright and Andrew E. Schouten, Wright & L'Estrange, San Diego, CA; Lawrence G. Keane, General Counsel, The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., Newtown, CT, for Amicus Curiae The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.

Dan M. Peterson, Dan M. Peterson PLLC, Fairfax, VA, for Amici Curiae International Law Enforcement Trainers and Educators Association, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Law Enforcement Action Network, CRPA Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc., San Francisco Veteran Police Officers' Association, California County Sheriffs Bosenko, Christianson, D'Agostini, Downey, Durfor, Growdon, Hencraft, L. Jones, S. Jones, Lopey, McMahon, Mele, Mims, Parker, Poindexter, Wilson and Youngblood, and District Attorney Egan.

David B. Kopel, Independence Institute, Denver, CO; John Parker Sweeney, T. Sky Woodward and James W. Porter, III, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and Gun Owners of California.

Brian S. Koukoutchos, Mandeville, LA, for Amicus Curiae Pink Pistols.

Gregory Silbert and Vanessa W. Chandis, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Everytown for Gun Safety.

Shannon S. Broome and Julia A. Miller, Katten Muchin Roseman, LLP, Oakland, CA; Jonathan K. Baum, Katten Muchin Roseman LLP, Chicago, IL, for Amici Curiae Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Cleveland School Remembers.

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney of Los Angeles, James P. Clark, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Debra L. Gonzales, Assistant City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Amicus Curiae City of Los Angeles; Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney of San Francisco, Wayne Snodgrass and Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorneys, San Francisco, CA, for Amicus Curiae City and County of San Francisco.

Foster C. Johnson, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Jonathan Lowy and Robert Wilcox, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence, the Major Chiefs Association, and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.

Before: MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BARBARA M.G. LYNN, District Judge.^*

OPINION

HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:

In this interlocutory appeal, Leonard Fyock, William Douglas, Scott Hochstetler, David Pearson, Brad Seifers, and Ron Swanson (collectively “Fyock”) challenge an order denying their request to preliminarily enjoin an ordinance recently enacted by the City of Sunnyvale, California (“Sunnyvale”), restricting the possession of “large-capacity magazines”—statutorily defined as a detachable ammunition feeding device capable of accepting more than ten rounds. Fyock claims that Sunnyvale's ordinance, part of a ballot measure known as Measure C, violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and will irreparably harm him if not immediately enjoined.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding Fyock's likelihood of success on the merits of his constitutional challenge, we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The manufacture, sale, purchase, and possession of large-capacity magazines has been regulated in California for approximately twenty years through a combination of federal and state laws. In 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (“Crime Control Act”), which proscribed, among other things, the possession of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices”—also defined as any magazine capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition. SeePub.L. 103–322, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1796, 1998–2000 (formerly codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(w)); see also San Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.1996). Beginning in 2000, California criminalized the manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, and receipt of large-capacity magazines within the state, but did not specifically criminalize the possession of large-capacity magazines, which was covered at the time by federal law. SeeCal.Penal Code §§ 32310, 16740. In 2004, the Crime Control Act lapsed, leaving a “loophole” permitting the possession of large-capacity magazines in California.

In the wake of recent mass shootings and in recognition of the “violence and harm caused by and resulting from both the intentional and accidental misuse of guns,” Sunnyvale sought to enhance public safety by enacting further gun safety measures. In part, Sunnyvale sought to close the “loophole” created by the expiration of the Crime Control Act. In November 2013, Sunnyvale voters passed Measure C, thereby amending the Municipal Code to include the large-capacity magazine restriction at issue in this appeal.¹

In relevant part, Measure C, now codified at Sunnyvale, Cal. Muni.Code §§ 9.44.030–060, provides:

No person may possess a large-capacity magazine in the city of Sunnyvale whether assembled or disassembled. For purposes of this section, “large-capacity magazine” means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten (10) rounds, but shall not include any of the following:

(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten (10) rounds; or

(2) A .22 caliber tubular ammunition feeding device; or

(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever action firearm.

Sunnyvale, Cal. Muni.Code § 9.44.050(a). The ordinance contains multiple exceptions, which permit the possession of large-capacity magazines within the city by certain individuals and under certain circumstances. Id. § 9.44.050(c).

Measure C went into effect on December 6, 2013, and covered individuals in Sunnyvale were given ninety days—until March 6, 2014—to comply with the ordinance by: (1) removing their large-capacity magazines from city limits; (2) surrendering their large-capacity magazines to the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety; or (3) transferring their large-capacity magazines to a licensed gunsmith. Id. § 9.44.050(b).

Fyock brought the underlying suit against Sunnyvale and other individual defendants (collectively “Sunnyvale”) challenging the constitutionality of Measure C. Fyock (along with the other Plaintiffs) is a resident of Sunnyvale, who currently owns large-capacity magazines and wishes to possess those magazines within Sunnyvale's city limits. Fyock moved for a preliminary injunction in an effort to enjoin Measure C and forestall the March 6, 2014, compliance date. The district court denied Fyock's motion, and Fyock filed a timely notice of appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion and the underlying legal principles de novo. DISH Network Corp. v. F.C.C., 653 F.3d 771, 776 (9th Cir.2011). As a result, we are not called upon today to determine the ultimate merits of Fyock's claims. Instead, we are called upon to determine whether the district court relied on an erroneous legal premise or abused its discretion in denying Fyock's motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief. See Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 468 (9th Cir.2010). In making this determination, we consider “whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” DISH Network Corp., 653 F.3d at 776 (quoting Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982)).

As we have previously noted, there are limitations to interlocutory appeals of this nature given the narrow scope of our review:

[I]n some cases, parties appeal orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions in order to ascertain the views of the appellate court on the merits of the litigation, but ... due to the limited scope of our review ... our disposition of appeals from most preliminary injunctions may provide little guidance as to the appropriate disposition on the merits and ... such appeals often result in unnecessary delay to the parties and inefficient use of judicial resources.

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Mindful of our task to determine only whether the district court correctly distilled the applicable rules of law and exercised permissible discretion in applying those rules to the facts at hand, we turn to Fyock's arguments and the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction.

DISCUSSION

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Fyock was required to show (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor, and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). Because we determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Fyock failed to demonstrate the first element for a preliminary injunction, we need not reach the remaining elements. See Jackson v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953,...