B&L Prods., Inc. v. 22ND Dist. Agric. Ass'n, Case No.: 3:19-CV-134-CAB-NLS

• Decision Date: 25 June 2019
• Docket Number: Case No.: 3:19-CV-134-CAB-NLS
• Citation: 394 F.Supp.3d 1226
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: B & L PRODUCTIONS, INC. d/b/a Crossroads of the West et al., Plaintiffs, v. 22ND DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants.

394 F.Supp.3d 1226

B & L PRODUCTIONS, INC. d/b/a Crossroads of the West et al., Plaintiffs,

v.22ND DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-CV-134-CAB-NLS

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed June 25, 2019

Carl D. Michel, Sean Brady, Anna M. Barvir, Tiffany D. Cheuvront, Michel & Associates PC, Long Beach, CA, for Plaintiff.

Chad Allen Stegeman, Natasha Saggar Sheth, Peiyin Patty Li, California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION RE JUNE 18, 2019 ORDER

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge At a hearing on June 17, 2019, and in an order dated June 18, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants, denied Plaintiffs' request for entry of summary judgment, and issued a preliminary injunction against Defendant 22nd District Agricultural District (the "District"). The purpose of this opinion is to provide the reasoning for the Court's order.

I. Background

Plaintiff B&L Productions, Inc. d/b/a Crossroads of the West ("Crossroads") operates gun show events in California, including at the Del Mar Fairgrounds (the "Fairgrounds"). [Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 1.] Plaintiffs California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. ("CRPA"); South Bay Rod and Gun Club, Inc. ("SBRGC"); Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. ("SAF"); Barry Bardack; Ronald J. Diaz, Sr.; John Dupree; Christopher Irick; Lawrence Michael Walsh; and Maximum Wholesale, Inc. d/b/a Ammo Bros ("MW"), attend and participate in the Crossroads gun show at the Fairgrounds. [Id. at ¶ 7.] The Complaint describes gun shows as:

a modern bazaar—a convention of like-minded individuals who meet in this unique public forum that has been set aside by state local governments for all manner of commerce. Gun shows just happen to include the exchange of products and ideas, knowledge, services, education, entertainment, and recreation, related to the lawful uses of firearms. Those lawful uses include (but are not limited to):

a. Firearm safety training;

b. Self-defense;

c. Defense of others;

d. Defense of community;

e. Defense of state;

f. Defense of nation;

g. Hunting;

h. Target shooting;

i. Gunsmithing;

j. Admiration of guns as art;

k. Appreciation of guns as technological artifacts; and

l. Study of guns as historical objects.

[Id. at ¶ 47.] The complaint further alleges that:

Gun shows in general, and the Del Mar show in particular, are a celebration of America's "gun culture" that is a natural and essential outgrowth of the constitutional rights that flow from the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Participating in that culture is one of the primary reasons people attend Crossroads gun shows as vendors, exhibitors, customers, and guests (even if particular vendors/attendees are not in the firearm business or in the market to buy a gun at a particular event.)

[Id. at ¶ 49.]

According to the complaint, individuals attending and participating in these gun shows engage in commercial activities [id. at ¶ 3], but "[a]ctual firearm transfers are prohibited from taking place at any gun show in California absent very limited exceptions applicable only to law enforcement" [id. at ¶ 43]. "Only a small percentage (usually less than 40%) of the vendors actually offer firearms or ammunition for sale. The remaining vendors offer accessories, collectibles, home goods, lifestyle products, food and other refreshments." [Id. at ¶ 48.]

In addition, according to the complaint, these gun show events include activities and discussions related to: "firearms, firearm technology, firearm safety, gun-politics, and gun-law (both pending legislation and proper compliance with existing law.) Other topics include: where to shoot, where and from whom to receive training, gun-lore, gun-repair, gunsmithing, gun-art, and many other topics, that arise from the right to acquire, own, possess, enjoy, and celebrate arms as a quintessentially American artifact with Constitutional significance." [Id. at ¶ 3.] The complaint also alleges that at gun shows, "literature and information are shared, speakers provide valuable live lectures, classes are conducted, political forums are held where gun rights discussions take place, and candidates for political office can meet to discuss political issues, the government, and the Constitution with constituents who are part of the California gun culture." [Id. at ¶ 52.]

The Fairgrounds is owned by the state of California and managed by the board of directors of Defendant 22nd District Agricultural Association (the "District"). [Id. at ¶¶ 23, 58, 112.] According to the complaint, the Fairgrounds "is used by many different public groups and is a major event venue for large gatherings of people to engage in expressive activities, including concerts, festivals, and industry shows." [Id. at ¶ 63.] The Fairgrounds' website allegedly describes its mission as " ‘[t]o manage and promote a world-class, multi-use, public assembly facility with an emphasis on agriculture, education, entertainment, and recreation in a fiscally sound and environmentally conscientious manner for the benefit of all. ’ " [Id. at ¶ 66 (emphasis originally in complaint); Doc. No. 1-2 at 2-33; Doc. No. 14-5 at 206.]¹

Defendant Karen Ross is the Secretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture (the "CDFA"), the entity responsible for policy oversight of the Fairgrounds. [Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 24.] According to the complaint, she oversees the operation of the District, and authorized the other Defendants "to interpret, enforce, and implement [the CDFA's] policies for the operation and management of the [Fairgrounds]." [Id. at ¶¶ 59, 113.]

Defendants Steve Shewmaker and Richard Valdez are president and vice-president of the District Board of Directors, respectively. [Id. at ¶¶ 25, 26.] Shewmaker and Valdez were also the members of an "ad hoc committee responsible for developing the plan, in closed session, to effectively ban gun shows from the [Fairgrounds]." [Id. ; see also ¶ 84] At a public hearing on September 11, 2018, this committee:

recommended that the District not consider any contracts with the producers of gun shows beyond December 31, 2018 until such time as the District has put into place a more thorough policy regarding the conduct of gun shows that:

a. Considers the feasibility of conducting gun shows for only educational and safety training purposes and bans the possession of guns and ammunition on state property[;]

b. Aligns gun show contract language with recent changes to state and federal law[;]

c. Details enhanced security plan for the conduct of future shows[;]

d. Proposes a safety plan[;]

e. Considers the age appropriateness of the event[;] f. Grants rights for the [District] to perform an audit to ensure full compliance with California Penal Code Sections 171b and 12071.1 and 12071.4.

[Id. at ¶ 88.] The District then "voted (8-to-1) to impose a one-year moratorium (for the year 2019) on gun show events at the Venue while they study potential safety concerns." [Id. at ¶ 94.] According to the complaint, there was "no finding that allowing the (already heavily regulated) gun show events to continue at the [Fairgrounds] posed a definite or unique risk to public safety." [Id. at ¶ 92.] The complaint also alleges that the Fairgrounds "has held other non-gun-show events in which criminal activity has taken place—including theft and a shooting. These criminal incidents are no more likely to happen at a gun show event [than at] the non-gun-show event. The District has taken no actions to ban or impose a moratorium on these promoters or events." [Id. at ¶ 67.]

II. Procedural History

On January 21, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action. The complaint asserts several claims for violation of the right to free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution by various combinations of Plaintiffs, as well as claims by all Plaintiffs for violation of the right to assembly and association under the First Amendment, violation of the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The complaint prays for declaratory relief that Defendants' actions in enacting the moratorium on gun shows violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment Rights, injunctive relief compelling Defendants to allow Crossroads to hold gun shows at the Fairgrounds in 2019, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

On March 27, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. In their opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs asked the Court to convert the motion to dismiss into cross-motions for summary judgment. Upon review of the briefing, and because in a First Amendment case, "plaintiffs have a special interest in obtaining a prompt adjudication of their rights," Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. , 564 U.S. 552, 563, 131 S.Ct. 2653, 180 L.Ed.2d 544 (2011), the Court was inclined to adopt Plaintiffs' proposal. The Court then ordered further briefing to give Defendants the opportunity to fully oppose summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. After that supplemental briefing was complete, the Court held a hearing on June 17, 2019. As memorialized by a written order the following day, at that hearing the Court informed the parties that it was granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss, denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment based on Defendants' claim that they need discovery to adequately oppose the motion, and set a discovery schedule and briefing schedule for motions for summary judgment. The Court also granted a preliminary injunction to Plaintiffs that enjoined Defendants from enforcing the moratorium on gun shows adopted at the September 11, 2018 meeting (the "Moratorium"). This opinion provides the Court's reasoning for the rulings it issued at the June 17, 2019 hearing and memorialized in the June 18, 2019 order.

III. Defendants' ...