On January 25, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
California Fire Protection Coalition,
Del Toro Trejo, Juan Carlos,
Filed By: Fire Guard Corporation,
Fire Guard Corporation,
Shahangian, Bahman Brian,
and
California Department Of Forestry And Fire Protection,
California Office Of The State Fire Marshal,
Dennis Mathisen In His Official Capacity As State Fire Marshal,
Does 1-10,
Jeffery Schwartz In His Official Capacity As Deputy State Fire Marshall,
Mike Richwine In His Official Capacity As State Fire Marshal,
for (Civil Rights/Discrimination)
in the District Court of Sacramento County.
Preview
1 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
William Gausewitz (SBN 91524)
2 1201 K Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Telephone: (916) 442-1111
Facsimile: (916) 448-1709
4
gausewitzb@gtlaw.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
CALIFORNIA FIRE PROTECTION COALITION
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12 FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; CASE NO. 34-2019-00249221
BAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGL\N, and
13 individual; CALIFORNIA FIRE
PROTECTION COALITION, a Califomia [PROPOSED] ORDER R E : PLAINTIFF'S
Corporation, and JUAN CARLOS DEL IMOTION FOR SUIVCMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN
14 TORO TREJO, an individual, T H E ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUIVDMARY
15 ADJUDICATION
Plaintiffs,
16 Hearing Date: July 20, 2021
vs. Time: 1:30 PM
17 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Dept.: 53
FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION; Reservation #2571303
18 CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHALL; MIKE RICHWINE, in
19 his official capacity as State Fire Marshal;
JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official
20 capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshall;, and
DOES 1-10 inclusive.
21
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
Case No. 34-2019-00249221
[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff CALIFORNIA FIRE PROTECTION
2 COALITION'S motion for summary judgment, or in the altemative for summary adjudication. Having
3 read and considered the papers and considered the parties' arguments, and being fully informed, the
4 Court hereby GRANTS the motion for summary judgment for the reasons as stated in Plaintiffs'
5 Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed in support of the motion. The Court further DECLARES
6 as follows:
7 1. The regulations challenged by Plaintiff and adopted by Defendant the Office of State Fire
8 Marshal are VOID because they are not within the scope of the regulatory authority of the Office of
9 State Fire Marshal; and
10 2. The regulations challenged by Plaintiff and adopted by Defendant the Office of State Fire
11 Marshal are VOID because they are not reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of Califomia
12 law.
13 3. The Court hereby permanently ENJOINS Defendant the Office of State Fire Marshal
14 from any enforcement of the challenged regulations by Plaintiff and adopted by Defendant
15 Because this Order effectively adjudicates all substantive issues raised by Plaintiff in its First
16 Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, there are no remaining causes of action by
17 Plaintiff that are to be adjudicated by the Court, and therefore the Court grants judgment in favor of
18 Plaintiffs and against Defendant the Office of State Fire Marshal, on all causes of action.
19
20 IT IS SO FOUND, ORDERED, AND ADJUDGED.
21
DATE:
22
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
23
24
25
26
27
Case No. 34-2019-00249221
28 [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Document Filed Date
June 16, 2021
Case Filing Date
January 25, 2019
Category
(Civil Rights/Discrimination)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.