Pine Valley House Resort, LLC v. Newsom
| Decision Date | 10 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-568 TWR (BLM) |
| Parties | PINE VALLEY HOUSE RESORT, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, et al., Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his capacity as Governor of the State of California, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
PINE VALLEY HOUSE RESORT, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, et al., Plaintiff,
v.
GAVIN NEWSOM, in his capacity as Governor of the State of California, et al., Defendants.
No. 21-CV-568 TWR (BLM)
United States District Court, S.D. California
March 10, 2022
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS, (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT, AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT THE CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
(ECF NOS. 18-20)
HONORABLE TODD W. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Presently before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss (the “Motions”) filed by the State Defendants[1] (“State Mot., ” ECF No. 20), the County Defendants[2] (“Cty. Mot., ” ECF
No. 18[3]), and the City Defendants[4] (“City Mot., ” ECF No. 19[5]), [6] as well as Plaintiffs'[7]Opposition to (“Opp'n, ” ECF No. 23) and Defendants' Replies in Support of (“State Reply, ” ECF No. 27; “Cty. Reply, ” ECF No. 26; “City Reply, ” ECF No. 28) the Motions. The Court determined that this matter is suitable for determination on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (See ECF No. 33.) Having carefully reviewed Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Parties' arguments, and the law, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES AS MOOT the City Defendants' alternative request for a more definite statement.
BACKGROUND
I. Plaintiffs' Allegations[8]
Plaintiffs to this action are a collection of restaurants and their owners (the “Restaurant Plaintiffs”), as well as the Reopen San Diego Small Business Coalition (the “Coalition”), which is “a membership association of dining and drinking establishments, gyms, dance studios, martial arts studios, hair salons, and other businesses and individuals in the City of San Diego, and/or in San Diego County, California.” (See Compl. ¶¶ 13, 18-27, 31.) By now, the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint-which challenges orders and restrictions issued and enforced in response to COVID-19 (the “challenged restrictions”)-are familiar to the Parties, the Court, and all Californians. The Court therefore briefly summarizes Plaintiffs' allegations.
“On March 4, 2020, Defendant Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in response to the spread of COVID-19 . . . pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Government Code.” (See Compl. ¶ 4; see also Id. ¶ 23.) Pursuant to this proclamation, on March 19, 2020, the State Public Health Officer issued what has colloquially been called the “Stay at Home” Order. (See Id. ¶¶ 47, 49.) The Restaurant “Plaintiff[s] . . . were required to cease providing indoor and outdoor dining for their customers to comply with the March 19, 2020, Order” and “were permitted to offer exclusively take-out and delivery service.” (See Id. ¶ 60.)
“On May 4, 2020, Governor Newsom, again acting pursuant to emergency powers under state law, issued Executive Order N-60-20[, ]” which permitted businesses to begin reopening in stages, as determined by the State Public Health Officer.” (See Id. ¶ 63.) Pursuant to this order, on May 7, 2020, the State Public Health Officer “issued an Order permitting the gradual reopening of businesses and activities in California in stages.” (See Id. ¶ 64.) The May 7, 2020 order “provided for four stages of gradual reopening, with the final stage, Stage 4, consisting of an end to all stay-at-home orders and a full reopening of businesses.” (See id.) The Restaurant Plaintiffs “were permitted to resume providing outdoor dining service” at that time, (see Id. ¶ 65), although they “were required by defendants to implement numerous additional health and safety practices as a condition to resuming outdoor dining service.” (See Id. ¶ 66.)
“On July 13, 2020, the State Public Health Officer issued a further Order directing all restaurants in the State of California to again cease indoor dining service.” (Id. ¶ 84.) “The Order applied to all restaurants in San Diego County.” (Id.)
On August 28, 2020, the then-Acting State Public Health Officer “implemented a statewide Order that abandoned the previous, staged re-opening plan promulgated in the May 7, 2020 Order” and that “dictated that counties would be classified according to a new plan entitled ‘Blueprint for a Safer Economy[ the “Blueprint”],' under which a color-coded ‘tier' system would be used.” (See Id. ¶ 92.) “Under the August 28, 2020, Order, under the respective tiers, restaurants are required to 1.) cease all indoor dining (Purple tier); 2.) limit indoor dining capacity to 25% (Red tier); or 3.) limit indoor dining capacity to 50% (Orange and Yellow tiers).” (Id.)
On December 3, 2020, the State of California issued a Regional Stay at Home Order. (See Id. ¶ 105.) This again forced the Restaurant Plaintiffs to close their businesses to indoor and outdoor dining, although they were still permitted to offer take-out, pick-up, and delivery. (See Id. ¶¶ 107, 109, 113.) The Regional Stay at Home Order was lifted on January 25, 2021, allowing restaurants also to offer outdoor dining, (see Id. ¶ 119), pursuant to a County-imposed curfew. (See Id. ¶ 120.) In the midst of the Regional Stay at Home
Order, on December 14, 2020, Governor Newsom announced that COVID-19 vaccines were beginning to be administered in California. (See Id. ¶ 112.)
The Restaurant Plaintiffs contend that they have been treated differently than other similarly situated restaurants in the County of San Diego because nearly all of them were served Cease-and-Desist Orders or Notices of Violation after publicly voicing their opposition to the challenged restrictions and, sometimes, their intention that their businesses would remain open in violation of those orders. (See Id. ¶ 128.) At the time Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, the Restaurant Plaintiffs were allowed to serve dine-in patrons at 25% of their seating capacity as well as outdoor diners under the Blueprint system. (See Id. ¶ 131.) It is undisputed, however, that the Blueprint was rescinded as of June 15, 2021. (See, e.g., Opp'n at 6.)
II. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 31, 2021, alleging fifteen causes of action for: (1) violation of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (2) violation of their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (3) violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (4) violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (5) violation of the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3; (6) retaliation under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;[9] (7) violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;[10] (8) violation of the Taking of Damaging Clause of the California Constitution, Cal. Const. Art. I, § 19; (9) commandeering private property or personnel under California
Government Code § 8572; (10) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution, Cal. Const. Art. I, § 7; (11) violation of their right of liberty under the California Constitution, Cal. Const. Art. I, § 1; (12) violation of the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3; (13) termination of the declared state of emergency pursuant to California Government Code § 8629; (14) a declaration that the original proclamation of a state of emergency did not meet the statutory requirements under California Government Code § 8558; and (15) a declaration that the Governor's claim to broad emergency powers violations the Non-Delegation Clause of the California Constitution, Cal. Const., Art. IV, § 1.[11] (See generally ECF No. 1.) Following several stipulated extensions, (see generally ECF Nos. 6, 14, 17), Defendants filed the instant Motions on July 23, 2021. (See generally ECF Nos. 18-20.)
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
I. Legal Standards
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
A party may challenge the court's subject-matter jurisdiction through a motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); see also White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). Because “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, ” “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Consequently, “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.
“Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attacks can be either facial or factual.” White, 227 F.2d at 1242. “A ‘facial' attack accepts the truth of the plaintiff's allegations but asserts that they ‘are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.'” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004)). “The district court resolves a facial attack as it would a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6): Accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, the court determines whether the allegations are sufficient as a legal matter to invoke the court's jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013)).
“A ‘factual' attack, by contrast, contests the truth of the plaintiff's factual allegations, usually by introducing evidence outside the pleadings.” Id. (citing Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039; Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979)). “When the defendant raises a factual attack, the plaintiff must support her jurisdictional allegations with ‘competent proof[]'” and “prov[e] by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the requirements for...
To continue reading
Request your trial