Preview
1 ROB BONTA
Attomey General of Califomia
FlLED/ENDORSED
2 RUSSELL B. HILDRETH
Supervising Deputy Attomey General NOV - 5 2021
3 ANDREA M . KENDRICK, State Bar No. 225688
COURTNEY S. COVINGTON, State Bar No. 259723 By:. p. Vue
4 Deputy Attomeys General Depun' Clerk
1300 I Street, Suite 125
5 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
6 Telephone: (916)210-7821
Fax: (916) 327-2319
7 E-mai 1: Andrea.Kendrick@doJ.ca.gov
8 Attorneys for Defendants
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13 FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; Case No. 34-2019-00249221
RAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGIAN, an
14 individual; and CALIFORNIA FIRE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
PROTECTION COALITION, a California DENYING PLAINTIFF CALIFORNIA
15 Corporation; and JUAN CARLOS DEL FIRE PROTECTION COALITION'S
TORO TREJO, an individual,, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
16 AND/OR ADJUDICATION
Plaintiffs,
17 Date: October 13,2021
Time: 1:30 p.m.
18 Dept: 53
Judge: Hon. Shama Mesiwala
19 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Trial Date: December 5-9, 2022
FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION;
20 CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL; MIKE RICHWINE, in
21 his official capacity as State Fire Marshal;
JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official
22 capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshal; and
DOES I through 10, inclusive,
23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
1
Notice of Entry of Order Denying Plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection Coalition's MSJ and/or MSA
(Case No. 34-2019-00249221)
1 TO A L L PARTIES:
2 Please take Notice that the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection
3 Coalition's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication was entered in this matter on
4 October 29, 2021. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit I .
5
6
Dated: November 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
7
ROB BONTA
8
Attorney General of Califomia
RUSSELL B . HILDRETH
9
Supervising Deputy Attomey General
10
12 ANDREA M. KENDRICK
Deputy Attomey General
13 Attorneys for Defendants
14
SA20I9300028
15 35626687.docx
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,26
27
28
Notice of Entry of Order Denying Plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection Coalition's MSJ and/or MSA
(Case No. 34-2019-00249221)
EXHIBIT 1
'-(5)17
1 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of Califomia
2 RUSSELL B . HILDRETH
Supervising Deputy Attomey General •^•-v A!-iD uon
3 ANDREA M . KENDRICK, State Bar No. 225688
COURTNEY S. COVINGTON, State Bar No. 259723
4 Deputy Attomeys General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
5 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
6 Telephone: (916)210-7821
Fax: (916)327-2319
7 E-mail: Ajidrea.Kendrick@doj.ca.gov
8 Attorneys for Defendants
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12
13 FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; iase No. 34-2019-00249221
BAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGIAN, an
14 individual; and CALIFORNIA FIRE iffi»pes«dj. ORDER DENYING
PROTECTION COALITION, a California PLAINTIFF CALIFORNIA FIRE
15 Corporation; and JUAN CARLOS DEL PROTECTION COALITION'S MOTION
TORO TREJO, an Individual,, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR
16 ADJUDICATION
Plaintiffs,
17 Date: October 13, 2021
V. Time: 1:30 p.m.
18 Dept: 53
Judge: Hon. Shama Mesiwala
19 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Trial Date: December 5-9, 2022
FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION;
20 CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL; MIKE RICHWINE, in
21 his ofTicial capacity as State Fire Marshal;
JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official
.22 capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshal; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
•ifPrrjpn'irr!] Order Denying PlaintifTCalifomia Fire Protection Goalilion's MSJ and/or MSA (34-2019-00249221)
1 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION
2 This matter was heard by the Court on October 13, 2021. PlaintifF Caiifomia Fire
3 Protection Coalition was represented by William Gausewitz of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
4 Defendants Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; Califomia Office ofthe State
5 Fire Marshal; Mike Richwine, in his official capacity as State Fire Marshal; and Jeffrey Schwartz,
6 in his official capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshal, were represented by Andrea M. Kendrick of
7 the Califomia Office of the Attomey General. Having considered the parties' papers and
8 arguments and taken the matter under submission, the Court issued its Ruling on Submitted
9 Matter (Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication), which was entered into the Court's
10 Register of Actions for this matter on October 15, 2021, and is attached as Exhibit A and
11 incorporated by reference.
12 For the reasons stated in the Ruling on Submitted Matter, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff
13 Califomia Fire Protection Coalition's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, is
14 denied.
15
16 Dated: OCT 2 9 2021
HON. SHAMA MESIWALA
17 Judge ofthe Superior Court
18
19 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
20
21 Dated:
Counsel for Plaintiff Califomia Fire
22 Protection Coalition
23
SA2019300028
24 35566883.docx
25
26
27
28
(TrepD5(id).0rder Denying Plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection Coalition's MSJ and/or MSA (34-2019-00249221)
SUPERIOR COURT OF C A L I F O R N I M ,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 10/15/2021 TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER.PRESIDING: Shama Mesiwala
CLERK: P. Lopez
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
CASE NO: 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 01/25/2019
CASE TITLE; Fire Guard Corporation vs, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion for Summary Judgment and/or
Adjudication) Taken under submission on 10/13/21
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff California Fire Protection Coalition's ("CFPC") Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary
Adjudication is denied.
Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibit A: California
Assembly Bill 433 (Gordon), enacted In 2013 as Chapter 377, Statutes of 2013; Exhibit B: California
Rule-making, Office of Administrative Law ("OAL") File # 2017-0209-02SR, March 24, 2017, which
enacted the challenged regulations; Exhibit C: California Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 433 as
amended on August 13, 2013; Exhibit D: California Senate Floor Analysis of AB 433 as amended on
August 13, 2013,
Plaintiff challenges regulations enacted by the Office of the State Fire Marshall ("OSFM") pursuant to
Section 11350 of the California Government Code, which permits any interested person to obtain a
judicial declaration as to the validity of any regulation. Plaintiff asserts that the regulations are not within
the scope of authority conferred by statute and are not reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose
of AB 433. The regulations therefore violate sections 11342.1 and 11342.2 ofthe California Government
Code.
Plaintiff seeks an order granting summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, with
respect to its Complaint. However, the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") contains seven causes of
action, and this motion addresses only the declaratory relief claims in the 6th and 7th cause of action.
And, the separate statement addresses only the 6th cause of action.
The motion for summary judgment is denied because the motion does not address all causes of action
in the Complaint, only the 6th and 7th causes of action, and therefore the ruling on the motion would not
dispose of the entire FAC. .
In addition, because the separate statement only addresses the 6th cause of action, it violates CRC 3,
1350(b), which requires that a summary adjudication motion indude each cause of action to be
adjudicated in the notice of motion and In the separate statement. Since plaintiff did not comply with
CRC 3. 1350(b) as to the 7th cause of action, because It was not mentioned in the separate statement.
DATE: 10/15/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Fire Guard Corporation vs. California CASE NO: 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
this motion is considered only as a motion for summary adjudication of the 6th cause of action.
The FAC challenges regulations adopted by Defendant Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM). Plaintiff
contends OSFM improperly seeks to regulate which persons may lawfully install water-based fire
suppression systems. Plaintiffs contend that the challenged regulations are illegal and void because
they are not within the scope of the OSFM regulatory authority.
Plaintiff requests summary adjudication as follows:
"fith nause of action : Plaintiff Is Entitled to Summary Adjudication of Plaintiffs 6th Cause of Action for
Declaratory Relief Because There Are No Disputed Issues of Material Fact and Plaintiff Is Entitled to
Judicial Declaration that the Challenged Regulations are not within the scope of regulatory authority
conferred on Defendant by law. Specifically Plaintiff contends it Is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
that the Health and Safety Code authorizes the Office of State Fire Marshal ("OSFM") to regulate fire
sprinkler equipment and trie standards for installation and maintenance of that equipment. Neither the
Health & Safety Code, nor any other law, authorizes OSFM to regulate the training, testing, or licensing
of contractors who Install fire sprinkler systems. Such regulations can only be, and have been, adopted
by the Contractors State License Board.
7th cause of action: Plaintiff Is Entitled to Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary
Adjudication, as to Plaintiffs 7th Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief Because There Are No Disputed
Issues of Material Fact and Plaintiff Is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law that the Challenged
Regulations are in conflict with the Business and Professions Code and are not reasonably necessary to
effectuate the purpose of the Code."
The Court is not ruling on the 7th cause of action due to the failure to comply with CRC 3. 1350(b)
Plaintiffs separate statement contains four UMFs, supported by plaintiffs request for judicial notice.
UMF 1. In 2013, California enacted AB 433 (Gordon, Statutes of 2013, Chapter 377). This legislation
modified the California Business and Professions Code relating to the Contractors State License Board,
and the Health and Safety Code relating to the State Fire Marshal.
UMF 2. On Febmary 12, 2016, the Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) published a Notice of Proposed
Action to adopt regulations under the purported authority of Health and Safety Code § 13110, another
statute adopted by AB 433. These regulations were adopted by OSFM and comprise Chapter 5.5 of
Division 1 or Title 19 ofthe California Code of Regulations.
UMF 3. Since Health & Safety Code § 13110 does not grant express regulatory authority to OSFM to
regulate the training and qualifications of fire sprinkler installers. Instead of or In addition to, the
Contractors State License Board, it is appropriate for the court to examine extrinsic evidence. The best
available extrinsic evidence of the intent of the Legislature in enacting H&S § 13110 are the analyses of
AB 433 (Gordon, 2013).
UMF 4. In describing the effect ofthe bill on the regulatory authority granted to OSFM, the Senate Floor
analysis says only that it "Authorizes the State Fire Marshall to propose, adopt and administer the
regulations that he/she deems necessary in order to ensure fire safety In buildings and structures and
requires those regulations be submitted to the BSC for approval, as specified." The analysis employs a
somewhat imprecise statement that it authorizes regulations relating to "buildings and structures" - the
traditional regulatory role of OSFM.
I pgal standard
DATE: 10/15/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 53 Calendar No,
CASE TITLE: Fire Guard Corporation vs. California CASE NO: 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the court engages in a three step
process. The Court first identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of
the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. {FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nal
Preview
1 ROB BONTA Attomey General of Califomia FlLED/ENDORSED 2 RUSSELL B. HILDRETH Supervising Deputy Attomey General NOV - 5 2021 3 ANDREA M . KENDRICK, State Bar No. 225688 COURTNEY S. COVINGTON, State Bar No. 259723 By:. p. Vue 4 Deputy Attomeys General Depun' Clerk 1300 I Street, Suite 125 5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 6 Telephone: (916)210-7821 Fax: (916) 327-2319 7 E-mai 1: Andrea.Kendrick@doJ.ca.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; Case No. 34-2019-00249221 RAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGIAN, an 14 individual; and CALIFORNIA FIRE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER PROTECTION COALITION, a California DENYING PLAINTIFF CALIFORNIA 15 Corporation; and JUAN CARLOS DEL FIRE PROTECTION COALITION'S TORO TREJO, an individual,, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 AND/OR ADJUDICATION Plaintiffs, 17 Date: October 13,2021 Time: 1:30 p.m. 18 Dept: 53 Judge: Hon. Shama Mesiwala 19 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Trial Date: December 5-9, 2022 FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION; 20 CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL; MIKE RICHWINE, in 21 his official capacity as State Fire Marshal; JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official 22 capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshal; and DOES I through 10, inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 1 Notice of Entry of Order Denying Plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection Coalition's MSJ and/or MSA (Case No. 34-2019-00249221) 1 TO A L L PARTIES: 2 Please take Notice that the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection 3 Coalition's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication was entered in this matter on 4 October 29, 2021. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit I . 5 6 Dated: November 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 7 ROB BONTA 8 Attorney General of Califomia RUSSELL B . HILDRETH 9 Supervising Deputy Attomey General 10 12 ANDREA M. KENDRICK Deputy Attomey General 13 Attorneys for Defendants 14 SA20I9300028 15 35626687.docx 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,26 27 28 Notice of Entry of Order Denying Plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection Coalition's MSJ and/or MSA (Case No. 34-2019-00249221) EXHIBIT 1 '-(5)17 1 ROB BONTA Attorney General of Califomia 2 RUSSELL B . HILDRETH Supervising Deputy Attomey General •^•-v A!-iD uon 3 ANDREA M . KENDRICK, State Bar No. 225688 COURTNEY S. COVINGTON, State Bar No. 259723 4 Deputy Attomeys General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 6 Telephone: (916)210-7821 Fax: (916)327-2319 7 E-mail: Ajidrea.Kendrick@doj.ca.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 11 12 13 FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; iase No. 34-2019-00249221 BAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGIAN, an 14 individual; and CALIFORNIA FIRE iffi»pes«dj. ORDER DENYING PROTECTION COALITION, a California PLAINTIFF CALIFORNIA FIRE 15 Corporation; and JUAN CARLOS DEL PROTECTION COALITION'S MOTION TORO TREJO, an Individual,, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR 16 ADJUDICATION Plaintiffs, 17 Date: October 13, 2021 V. Time: 1:30 p.m. 18 Dept: 53 Judge: Hon. Shama Mesiwala 19 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Trial Date: December 5-9, 2022 FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION; 20 CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL; MIKE RICHWINE, in 21 his ofTicial capacity as State Fire Marshal; JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official .22 capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshal; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 •ifPrrjpn'irr!] Order Denying PlaintifTCalifomia Fire Protection Goalilion's MSJ and/or MSA (34-2019-00249221) 1 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION 2 This matter was heard by the Court on October 13, 2021. PlaintifF Caiifomia Fire 3 Protection Coalition was represented by William Gausewitz of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. 4 Defendants Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; Califomia Office ofthe State 5 Fire Marshal; Mike Richwine, in his official capacity as State Fire Marshal; and Jeffrey Schwartz, 6 in his official capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshal, were represented by Andrea M. Kendrick of 7 the Califomia Office of the Attomey General. Having considered the parties' papers and 8 arguments and taken the matter under submission, the Court issued its Ruling on Submitted 9 Matter (Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication), which was entered into the Court's 10 Register of Actions for this matter on October 15, 2021, and is attached as Exhibit A and 11 incorporated by reference. 12 For the reasons stated in the Ruling on Submitted Matter, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff 13 Califomia Fire Protection Coalition's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, is 14 denied. 15 16 Dated: OCT 2 9 2021 HON. SHAMA MESIWALA 17 Judge ofthe Superior Court 18 19 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 20 21 Dated: Counsel for Plaintiff Califomia Fire 22 Protection Coalition 23 SA2019300028 24 35566883.docx 25 26 27 28 (TrepD5(id).0rder Denying Plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection Coalition's MSJ and/or MSA (34-2019-00249221) SUPERIOR COURT OF C A L I F O R N I M , COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 10/15/2021 TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT: 53 JUDICIAL OFFICER.PRESIDING: Shama Mesiwala CLERK: P. Lopez REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: CASE NO: 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 01/25/2019 CASE TITLE; Fire Guard Corporation vs, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited APPEARANCES Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication) Taken under submission on 10/13/21 TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff California Fire Protection Coalition's ("CFPC") Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication is denied. Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibit A: California Assembly Bill 433 (Gordon), enacted In 2013 as Chapter 377, Statutes of 2013; Exhibit B: California Rule-making, Office of Administrative Law ("OAL") File # 2017-0209-02SR, March 24, 2017, which enacted the challenged regulations; Exhibit C: California Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 433 as amended on August 13, 2013; Exhibit D: California Senate Floor Analysis of AB 433 as amended on August 13, 2013, Plaintiff challenges regulations enacted by the Office of the State Fire Marshall ("OSFM") pursuant to Section 11350 of the California Government Code, which permits any interested person to obtain a judicial declaration as to the validity of any regulation. Plaintiff asserts that the regulations are not within the scope of authority conferred by statute and are not reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of AB 433. The regulations therefore violate sections 11342.1 and 11342.2 ofthe California Government Code. Plaintiff seeks an order granting summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, with respect to its Complaint. However, the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") contains seven causes of action, and this motion addresses only the declaratory relief claims in the 6th and 7th cause of action. And, the separate statement addresses only the 6th cause of action. The motion for summary judgment is denied because the motion does not address all causes of action in the Complaint, only the 6th and 7th causes of action, and therefore the ruling on the motion would not dispose of the entire FAC. . In addition, because the separate statement only addresses the 6th cause of action, it violates CRC 3, 1350(b), which requires that a summary adjudication motion indude each cause of action to be adjudicated in the notice of motion and In the separate statement. Since plaintiff did not comply with CRC 3. 1350(b) as to the 7th cause of action, because It was not mentioned in the separate statement. DATE: 10/15/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Fire Guard Corporation vs. California CASE NO: 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS Department of Forestry and Fire Protection this motion is considered only as a motion for summary adjudication of the 6th cause of action. The FAC challenges regulations adopted by Defendant Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM). Plaintiff contends OSFM improperly seeks to regulate which persons may lawfully install water-based fire suppression systems. Plaintiffs contend that the challenged regulations are illegal and void because they are not within the scope of the OSFM regulatory authority. Plaintiff requests summary adjudication as follows: "fith nause of action : Plaintiff Is Entitled to Summary Adjudication of Plaintiffs 6th Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief Because There Are No Disputed Issues of Material Fact and Plaintiff Is Entitled to Judicial Declaration that the Challenged Regulations are not within the scope of regulatory authority conferred on Defendant by law. Specifically Plaintiff contends it Is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the Health and Safety Code authorizes the Office of State Fire Marshal ("OSFM") to regulate fire sprinkler equipment and trie standards for installation and maintenance of that equipment. Neither the Health & Safety Code, nor any other law, authorizes OSFM to regulate the training, testing, or licensing of contractors who Install fire sprinkler systems. Such regulations can only be, and have been, adopted by the Contractors State License Board. 7th cause of action: Plaintiff Is Entitled to Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication, as to Plaintiffs 7th Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief Because There Are No Disputed Issues of Material Fact and Plaintiff Is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law that the Challenged Regulations are in conflict with the Business and Professions Code and are not reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the Code." The Court is not ruling on the 7th cause of action due to the failure to comply with CRC 3. 1350(b) Plaintiffs separate statement contains four UMFs, supported by plaintiffs request for judicial notice. UMF 1. In 2013, California enacted AB 433 (Gordon, Statutes of 2013, Chapter 377). This legislation modified the California Business and Professions Code relating to the Contractors State License Board, and the Health and Safety Code relating to the State Fire Marshal. UMF 2. On Febmary 12, 2016, the Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) published a Notice of Proposed Action to adopt regulations under the purported authority of Health and Safety Code § 13110, another statute adopted by AB 433. These regulations were adopted by OSFM and comprise Chapter 5.5 of Division 1 or Title 19 ofthe California Code of Regulations. UMF 3. Since Health & Safety Code § 13110 does not grant express regulatory authority to OSFM to regulate the training and qualifications of fire sprinkler installers. Instead of or In addition to, the Contractors State License Board, it is appropriate for the court to examine extrinsic evidence. The best available extrinsic evidence of the intent of the Legislature in enacting H&S § 13110 are the analyses of AB 433 (Gordon, 2013). UMF 4. In describing the effect ofthe bill on the regulatory authority granted to OSFM, the Senate Floor analysis says only that it "Authorizes the State Fire Marshall to propose, adopt and administer the regulations that he/she deems necessary in order to ensure fire safety In buildings and structures and requires those regulations be submitted to the BSC for approval, as specified." The analysis employs a somewhat imprecise statement that it authorizes regulations relating to "buildings and structures" - the traditional regulatory role of OSFM. I pgal standard DATE: 10/15/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 53 Calendar No, CASE TITLE: Fire Guard Corporation vs. California CASE NO: 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS Department of Forestry and Fire Protection In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the court engages in a three step process. The Court first identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. {FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nal