Altman v. Cnty. of Santa Clara

Citation464 F.Supp.3d 1106
Decision Date02 June 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 20-cv-02180-JST
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
Parties Janice ALTMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants.

John William Dillon, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance, LLP, Carlsbad, CA, Raymond Mark DiGuiseppe, The DiGuiseppe Law Firm, P.C., Southport, NC, George M. Lee, Seiler Epstein LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs Janice Altman, Ryan Goodrich, Albert Lee Swann, Roman Kaplan, Yan Traytel, Dmitri Danilevsky, Greg David, City Arms East LLC, City Arms LLC, Cuckoo Collectibles LLC, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Inc., National Rifle Association of America, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees Inc.

Adam Jeremy Kraut, Pro Hac Vice, Firearms Policy Coalition, Sacramento, CA, John William Dillon, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance, LLP, Carlsbad, CA, Raymond Mark DiGuiseppe, The DiGuiseppe Law Firm, P.C., Southport, NC, George M. Lee, Seiler Epstein LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition.

Raymond Mark DiGuiseppe, The DiGuiseppe Law Firm, P.C., Southport, NC, George M. Lee, Seiler Epstein LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Scott Chalmers.

Jason Matthew Bussey, Douglas Michael Press, Hannah Meredith Kieschnick, Melissa R. Kiniyalocts, Office of the County Counsel, San Jose, CA, for Defendant County of Santa Clara.

Jason Matthew Bussey, Douglas Michael Press, Melissa R. Kiniyalocts, Office of the County Counsel, San Jose, CA, for Defendants Laurie Smith, Jeffrey Rosen, Sara Cody.

Margo Laskowska, Office of the City Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendants City of San Jose, California, Sam Liccardo, Edgardo Garcia.

Krishan Singh Chopra, Lance Edward Bayer, City of Mountain View, Mountain View, CA, for Defendant City of Mountain View, California.

Krishan Singh Chopra, City of Mountain View, Mountain View, CA, for Defendant Max Bosel.

Raymond L. MacKay, Clay J. Christianson, Kevin Scott Dickey, Kristy L. van Herick, Senior Deputy County Counsel, Oakland, CA, for Defendants County of Alameda, California, Gregory Ahern, Erica Pan.

Daniel Todd McCloskey, Sarah Hoffman Trela, San Mateo County Counsel, Redwood City, CA, for Defendants County of San Mateo, California, Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, Doctor Scott Morrow.

Kevin Drake Siegel, Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendants City of Pacifica, California, Chief Dan Steidle.

Thomas Lawrence Geiger, Patrick L. Hurley, Contra Costa County Counsel, Martinez, CA, for Defendants County of Contra Costa, California, Sheriff David Livingston, Chris Farnitano.

Gene Tanaka, Best Best & Krieger, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendants City of Pleasant Hill, California, Bryan Hill.

ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Re: ECF No. 20

JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge We are in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 1.8 million people in the United States have been infected, and more than 20,000 new cases were reported yesterday alone. In order to limit the spread of this deadly disease, four Bay Area counties – among many others throughout the state – issued shelter-in-place orders limiting their residents’ ability to travel, eliminating gatherings, and closing businesses within their borders. The orders made exceptions for certain "essential businesses" to ensure their residents’ continued health, safety, and sanitation, but did not exempt firearms retailers or shooting ranges. Plaintiff firearms retailers, Second Amendment-related nonprofits, and individuals seeking to exercise their right to keep and bear arms now seek a preliminary injunction requiring the counties to exempt firearms retailers and shooting ranges from the shelter-in-place orders. ECF No. 20. Since the lawsuit was filed, three of the counties at issue now permit in-store retail, and the case is now moot as to those counties. Only the Alameda County order remains at issue.

Having carefully considered the extensive briefing submitted by the parties and the arguments presented by counsel, the Court concludes that Alameda County's shelter-in-place order passes constitutional muster. The order has a real and substantial relation to the important goal of protecting public health; it reasonably fits that goal; it is facially neutral and does not target firearms retailers or shooting ranges in particular; and it is limited in time. Thus, the burden the order places on the exercise of the Second Amendment right is constitutionally reasonable.

The Court will deny the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Our state, our country, and the entire world are in the middle of an unparalleled public health emergency. The novel coronavirus and the disease it causes, COVID-19, "first appeared in December 2019 and has since spread to most countries in the world, including the United States." ECF No. 46-6 ¶ 6. In the short time since, the virus "has thrust humankind into an unprecedented global public health crisis." Gayle v. Meade , No. 20-21553-CIV, 2020 WL 2086482, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2020), order clarified , No. 20-21553-CIV, 2020 WL 2203576 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2020). "Experts consider this outbreak the worst public health epidemic since the influenza

outbreak of 1918." ECF No. 46-6 ¶ 6. The virus "is extremely easy to transmit, can be transmitted by infected people who show no symptoms, has no cure, and the population has not developed herd immunity." ECF No. 46-7 ¶ 5. COVID-19 "is fatal to up to eighty percent of patients who go into intensive care units in hospitals." Id.

As of the date of this order, COVID-19 has sickened at least 6,325,303 people worldwide and 1,820,523 in the United States, and has killed 377,460 people globally and 105,644 nationally. Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins Univ., COVID-19 Dashboard (last visited June 2, 2020), https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 (last visited June 2, 2020). In California alone, 115,908 have been infected and 4,235 have died. L.A. Times Staff, Tracking Coronavirus in California , L.A. Times (last visited June 2, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/. In just the four counties that are the subject of this lawsuit, the numbers are 9,976 sick and 361 dead. Chronicle Digital Team, Coronavirus Tracker , S.F. Chronicle (last visited June 2, 2020), https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/. And these numbers, as shocking as they are, actually understate the damage inflicted by the virus, because a lack of testing masks the true number of infections and underreporting masks the true number of fatalities. See ECF No. 46-3 ¶ 5 (noting that "limited testing capacity means that case counts represent only a small portion of actual cases").

In response to this extraordinary challenge, both the State of California and individual counties have issued what are known as "shelter-in-place" orders. Such orders typically require non-essential businesses to close; limit individuals’ ability to travel; and require individuals to avoid behaviors that make transmission of the virus more likely. The purpose of such orders is "[t]o slow virus transmission as much as possible, to protect the most vulnerable, and to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed." ECF No. 46-6 ¶ 10. The orders are formulated based on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the California Department of Public Health, and other public health officials throughout the United States and around the world. See id. ; ECF No. 46-7 ¶ 6 ("Right now, shelter-at-home orders are being used worldwide to minimize the potential for people infected with the novel coronavirus to spread it."), id. ¶ 10 ("Effective containment of the virus requires limiting people's contact with each other because of the way that the virus is transmitted."). Shelter-in-place orders have inarguably slowed the spread of the virus, ECF No. 46-6 ¶¶ 17, 20, resulting in the saving of innumerable lives.

Defendants Santa Clara County, Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Contra Costa County first issued shelter-in-place orders on March 16, 2020. First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), ECF No. 19 ¶¶ 80, 93, 103, 114; see ECF No. 46-6 at 11-17 ("Mar. 16 Order"). The Orders required most businesses to "cease all activities at facilities located within the County."1 FAC ¶ 81. The Orders exempted 21 categories of "essential businesses," id. , such as grocery stores, health care operations, and banks, see Mar. 16 Order ¶ 10.f. The Orders authorized law enforcement officials to "ensure compliance with and enforce this Order." Id. ¶ 11. Firearm and ammunition retailers and shooting ranges were not exempted. FAC ¶ 81.

On March 31, 2020, Defendant Counties issued additional orders superseding the March 16 Orders and extending the shelter-in-place period until May 3, 2020. FAC ¶ 83; see ECF No. 46-6 at 19-33 ("Mar. 31 Order"). These Orders also did not exempt firearm and ammunition retailers and shooting ranges as essential businesses. FAC ¶ 84. The March 31 Orders stated that "violation of any provision of this Order constitutes an imminent threat and menace to public health, constitutes a public nuisance, and is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both." Mar. 31 Order ¶ 15. On April 29, 2020, Defendant Counties issued a new set of Orders extending the shelter-in-place period until May 31, 2020. See ECF No. 46 at 13 n.5.

On May 15 and May 18, 2020, the Counties updated their Orders yet again. See ECF No. 50 at 25-44 ("May 18 Order").2 "[I]n light of progress achieved in slowing the spread of COVID-19," the new Orders permit a new category of "Additional Businesses," including all retail businesses, to resume operation "subject to specified conditions and safety precautions to reduce associated risk of COVID-19 transmission." See id. ¶ 1. These conditions include offering goods for curbside pickup and, in two Counties, delivery. See id. , App. C-1 ¶1(b)(i)(1). T...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Tandon v. Newsom
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 5, 2021
    ...including bars and restaurants, did not bear a real or substantial relation to public health); Altman v. County of Santa Clara , 464 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (explaining that the Court "easily concludes" that a shelter in place order bears a real and substantial relationship ......
  • Calm Ventures LLC v. Newsom
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • July 13, 2021
    ...concludes that the Executive Orders bear a real and substantial relationship to public health. See, e.g., Altman v. County of Santa Clara , 464 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (holding that the Court "easily concludes" that a shelter in place order bears a real and substantial relat......
  • Dark Storm Indus. LLC v. Cuomo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • July 8, 2020
    ...This suffices to raise a triable issue of fact as to Schmucker's standing to bring suit.5 See Altman v. Cty. of Santa Clara, No. 20-CV-2180, 464 F.Supp.3d 1106, 1122-23 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020) (finding that individual plaintiffs had standing where they wished to purchase firearms but could......
  • Talleywhacker, Inc. v. Cooper
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • June 8, 2020
    ...in order to preserve critical medial resources for treatment of COVID-19 patients); Altman v. Cty. of Santa Clara, No. 20-CV-02180-JST, 464 F.Supp.3d 1106, –––– (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020) (upholding orders that "exempted 21 categories of ‘essential businesses,’ such as grocery stores, health ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • JACOBSON 2.0: POLICE POWER IN THE TIME OF COVID-19.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 84 No. 4, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...(applying only Jacobson standard to plaintiffs' substantive due process claims). The district court in Altman v. Cty. of Santa Clara, 464 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2020), complicated the situation further by applying separate Jacobson and traditional Second Amendment analyses, while expre......
  • THE "ESSENTIAL" FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 44 No. 3, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...(220.) See, e.g., McDougall v. Cty. of Ventura, 495 F. Supp. 3d 881, 885, 889 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Altman v. Cty. of Santa Clara, 464 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1118-19 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Conn. Citizens Def. League, Inc. v. Lamont, 465 F. Supp. 3d 56, 73 (D. Conn. 2020) (granting preliminary injunction ......
  • Governing by Executive Order During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Preliminary Observations Concerning the Proper Balance Between Executive Orders and More Formal Rule Making.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 86 No. 3, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...fairly support the Governor's treatment of indoor fitness facilities." Id. at 129. (244) See, e.g., Altman v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 464 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1111, 1132 (N.D. Cal. (245) Id. at 1111; but cf. Conn. Citizens Def. League, Inc. v. Lamont, 465 F. Supp. 3d 56, 72-73 (D. Conn. 2020) (a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT