Motion-Secondary: Fire Guard Corporation vs. California Department of Forestry ...

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
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