Preview
1 LUKE WAKE, No. 264647
E-Mail: lwake@pacificlegal.org
2 DANIEL M. ORTNER, No. 329866
E-Mail: dortner@pacificlegal.org E-FILED
3 Pacific Legal Foundation 11/12/2020 10:57 AM
930 G Street Superior Court of California
4 Sacramento, California 95814 County of Fresno
Telephone: (916) 419-7111 By: I. Herrera, Deputy
5 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ghost Golf, Inc., et al.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF FRESNO
10
11 GHOST GOLF, INC., DARYN Case No. 20CECG03170
COLEMAN, SOL Y LUNA MEXICAN
12
CUISINE, and NIEVES RUBIO,
MEMORANDUM
13 IN SUPPORT OF
Plaintiffs,
14 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE
v. RELIEF
15
GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official Date: December 15, 2020
16 capacity as Governor of California, Time: 3:30 p.m.
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official Location: Department 501
17 capacity as Attorney General of Judge: The. Hon. D. Tyler Tharpe
18 California, SANDRA SHEWRY, in her Date Action filed: Oct. 26, 2020
official capacity as Acting Director of Trial Date:
19 the California Department of Public
Health, ERICA S. PAN, in her official
20 capacity as Acting State Public Health
21 Officer,
22 Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief,
No. 20CECG03170
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page(s)
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................ii
4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iii
5 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
6 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 3
7 LEGAL BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 6
8 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 8
9 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 9
10 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................... 9
11 II. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS ........................ 10
12 A. The Emergency Services Act Does Not Authorize the Governor to
Dictate Generally Applicable Rules Restricting Business ..................... 10
13
B. An Expansive Reading of Section 8627 Violates the Non-Delegation
14 Doctrine .................................................................................................... 12
15 i. If Section 8627 Truly Grants All the Police Power of the
State to the Governor, Then It Allows Him to Set
16 Fundamental Policy ...................................................................... 13
17 ii. If Section 8627 Truly Grants All the Police Power of the
State to the Governor, Then It Does Not Provide Adequate
18 Guidance ........................................................................................ 14
19 iii. Section 8627 Lacks Requisite Safeguards Under the
Governor’s Open-Ended Construction ......................................... 19
20
C. CDPH Lacks Statutory Authority to Issue Generally Applicable Rules
21 Restricting Business Activity .................................................................. 23
22 II. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS AN INJUNCTION ................ 25
23 A. The Plaintiffs Have No Adequate Legal Remedy ................................... 25
24 B. The Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm .......................................... 25
25 C. An Injunction Would Remedy a Serious Harm and Would Be
Narrowly Tailored to Minimize Any Harm to the Public ...................... 26
26
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 27
27
28
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, ii
No. 20CECG03170
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 Cases
4 A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) ...................... 14
5 Alaska v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough, 736 P.2d 1140 (Alaska 1987) ........................ 16
6 Am. Distilling Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization,
55 Cal. App. 2d 799 (1942) ............................................................................... 12, 17
7
Am. Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Commc’ns, Inc.,
8 750 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1985)................................................................................. 26
9 Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of N. Am., AFL-CIO v.
Connally, 337 F. Supp. 737 (D.D.C. 1971) ............................................................. 20
10
Ex parte Arata, 52 Cal. App. 380 (1921)...................................................................... 23
11
Bailey v. Pritzker,
12 No. 5-20-0148, 2020 WL 2116566 (Ill. App. Ct. May 1, 2020)............................... 25
13 Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129 (1976) ............................................ 13, 18
14 Brown v. Chiang, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1203 (2011).......................................................... 6
15 California Retail Portfolio Fund GMBH & Co. KG v. Hopkins Real
Estate Grp., 193 Cal. App. 4th 849 (2011) ............................................................. 26
16
California State Auto Ass’n Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Downey,
17 96 Cal. App. 2d 876 (1950) ..................................................................................... 15
18 Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 140 S. Ct. 2603 (2020) ............................ 21
19 Ex parte Cannon, 167 Cal. 142 (1914) ......................................................................... 23
20 In re Certified Questions From United States Dist. Court, W. Dist. of
Michigan, S. Div.,
21 No. 161492, 2020 WL 5877599 (Mich. Oct. 2, 2020)................................... 16, 18-19
22 Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Res. Bd.,
11 Cal. 3d 801 (1974) .............................................................................................. 14
23
Cotta v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 157 Cal. App. 4th 1550 (2007) ....................... 13
24
Cty. of Butler v. Wolf,
25 No. 2:20-CV-677, 2020 WL 5510690 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2020) ...................... 21, 25
26 Ex parte Culver, 187 Cal. 437 (1921) ............................................................................. 8
27 Davenport v. Blue Cross of California, 52 Cal. App. 4th 435 (1997) .......................... 26
28
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, iii
No. 20CECG03170
1 Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control
Appeals Bd., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1518 (1999) ............................................................ 24
2
Ex parte Dillon, 44 Cal. App. 239 (1919) ..................................................................... 23
3
Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975) ........................................................... 26
4
Elkhorn Baptist Church v. Brown,
5 No. 20CV17482, 2020 WL 2532528 (Or. Cir. May 18, 2020) ................................ 25
6 Farmers Inc. Exch. v. California, 175 Cal. App. 3d 494 (1985) .................................. 10
7 First Baptist Church v. Kelly, 455 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (D. Kan. 2020) ......................... 25
8 Friedman v. Friedman, 20 Cal. App. 4th 876 (1993), as modified on
denial of reh’g (Dec. 27, 1993) ................................................................................ 25
9
G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n,
10 23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir. 1994)................................................................................... 26
11 Gaylord v. City of Pasadena, 175 Cal. 433 (1917)....................................................... 15
12 Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.,
3 Cal. 5th 1118 (2017)............................................................................ 13, 15, 17-18
13
Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) ......................................................... 22
14
Hewitt v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 148 Cal. 590 (1906) ............................ 12
15
IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, 35 Cal. 3d 63 (1983) .................................................... 9
16
Ex parte Junqua, 10 Cal. App. 602 (1909) ............................................................. 12-13
17
Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal. 2d 371 (1968) ........................................................... 13, 17-18
18
Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
19 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................. 16
20 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) ....................................... 26
21 Nat’l Tax-Limitation Comm. v. Schwarzenegger, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4 (2003)................ 19
22 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ......................................................... 23
23 On Fire Christian Center, Inc. v. Fischer,
453 F.Supp.3d 901 (W.D. Ky. 2020) ....................................................................... 25
24
Pac. Legal Found. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.,
25 29 Cal. 3d 101 (1981) .............................................................................................. 11
26 Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) ........................................................... 14
27 People v. Garcia, 2 Cal. 5th 792 (2017) ....................................................................... 10
28
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, iv
No. 20CECG03170
1 People v. Nash,
52 Cal. App. 5th 1041 (2020), review filed (Sept. 10, 2020) .................................. 22
2
People’s Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. State Franchise Tax Bd.,
3 110 Cal. App. 2d 696 (1952) ................................................................................... 14
4 In re Peppers, 189 Cal. 682 (1922) ............................................................................... 12
5 Prof’l Engineers in California Gov’t v. Schwarzenegger,
50 Cal. 4th 989 (2010)............................................................................................... 6
6
Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2020) ........................................................... 25
7
Rock House Fitness v. Acton,
8 Case No. 20CV000631, Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
(Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio) (issued May 20, 2020) ................. 25
9
Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52 (1915) ........................................................................ 13
10
State Bd. of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners,
11 40 Cal. 2d 436, 254 P.2d 29 (1953) ......................................................................... 13
12 Synar v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 1374 (D.D.C. 1986) .......................................... 16
13 Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri, 208 Cal. App. 4th 1342 (2012) .................................... 9
14 Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc. v. California, 213 Cal. App. 3d 131 (1989) ....................... 10
15 United States v. Emerson, 846 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................ 20
16 Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Nat. Res.,
921 P.2d 1134 (Alaska 1996) .................................................................................. 20
17
Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, 942 N.W.2d 900 (Wis. 2020) ..................................... 25
18
Statutes
19
35 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 7301 .................................................................... 19
20
10 Guam Code Ann. § 19405........................................................................................ 22
21
23 V.I.C. § 1005 ............................................................................................................ 19
22
Alaska Stat. Ann. § 26.23.020 ..................................................................................... 19
23
Cal. Gov’t Code § 8558 ................................................................................................... 7
24
Cal. Gov’t Code § 8567 ................................................................................................... 7
25
Cal. Gov’t Code § 8571 ............................................................................................. 7, 11
26
Cal. Gov’t Code § 8626 ................................................................................................... 7
27
Cal. Gov’t Code § 8627 ......................................................................................... passim
28
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, v
No. 20CECG03170
1 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8627.5 ................................................................................................ 7
2 Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 8628; 8628.5; 8665; 8567 ........................................................... 7, 11
3 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8628.5 ................................................................................................ 7
4 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8665 ................................................................................................... 7
5 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120130(c) ......................................................................... 8
6 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120130(d)......................................................................... 8
7 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120135 ............................................................................. 8
8 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120140 .................................................................. 8, 23-25
9 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120145 ....................................................................... 8, 24
10 Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 120145, 120130 ........................................................... 23
11 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120150 ............................................................................. 8
12 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-33.5-704 ...................................................................................... 19
13 D.C. Stat. § 7-2306 ....................................................................................................... 19
14 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 48-924 .............................................................................................. 19
15 La. Stat. Ann. § 29:724 ................................................................................................ 22
16 M.C.L. § 30.403 ............................................................................................................ 19
17 Minn. Stat. Ann. § 12.31 .............................................................................................. 19
18 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4:45 .......................................................................................... 22
19 S.C. Code Ann. § 25-1-440 (a)(2) .................................................................................. 19
20 Utah Code Ann. § 53-2a-206 ........................................................................................ 19
21 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 43.06.220 .............................................................................. 19
22 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 323.10............................................................................................... 19
23 Miscellaneous
24 Cal. Const. art. IV .......................................................................................................... 6
25 Cal. Const. art. V............................................................................................................ 6
26 Cal. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-
and-policy/abc-act/ .................................................................................................. 11
27
28
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, vi
No. 20CECG03170
1 CDPH, Guidance for Private Gatherings (Oct. 9, 2020),
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/ Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-
2 19/CDPH-Guidance-for-the-Prevention-of-COVID-19-Transmission-
for-Gatherings-10-09.aspx ...................................................................................... 15
3
CDPH, Guidance for Safer Halloween and Día de los Muertos
4 Celebrations during COVID-19 (Oct. 13, 2020),
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-
5 19/Guidance-for-Safer-Halloween-and-Dia-de-los-Muertos-
Celebrations-during-COVID-19.aspx ..................................................................... 15
6
Here Are the 2020 Bills Gov. Newsom Rejected or Signed into
7 California Law, Cal Matters (Oct. 1, 2020),
https://laist.com/2020/10/01/here_are_the_2020_bills_gov_
8 newsom_rejected_or_signed_into_california_law.php........................................... 21
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, vii
No. 20CECG03170
1 INTRODUCTION
2 We are in the midst of a global pandemic, which presents difficult public policy
3 challenges for the State of California and unprecedented trials for many businesses
4 and families struggling from the economic fall-out. But while the Legislature has
5 enacted numerous bills since COVID-19 began, the Legislature has yet to weigh and
6 consider competing public health and economic concerns on the weighty question of
7 whether and when businesses should be required to close, or otherwise restricted in
8 their activities. Instead, the Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to resolve these
9 fundamental policy issues.
10 Since March 19, 2020 Governor Newsom has invoked the Emergency Services
11 Act (ESA) in unprecedented ways and claimed the unilateral authority to issue orders
12 prohibiting or restricting private conduct in whatever manner he deems necessary to
13 address the pandemic. After more than seven months, Governor Newsom continues to
14 make fundamental policy decisions for the state without any procedural, substantive
15 or temporal limitations on his use of emergency powers. But one-man rule is
16 antithetical the separation of powers enshrined in the California Constitution,
17 especially where—as here—the Governor claims an unfettered power to continue to
18 make rules regulating every aspect of civil society by “emergency order” on an
19 indefinite and on-going basis.
20 On August 28, 2020, Governor Newsom announced that he would not be lifting
21 emergency restrictions on business anytime in the foreseeable future. Instead, he
22 doubled-down on restrictions that he has had in place since July 1, 2020, and added
23 additional complexities to his hand-crafted and ever-evolving regulatory regime. His
24 new “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” assigns different colors to California counties
25 and corresponding restrictions for all sectors of the California economy, based on data
26 collected from the California Department of Public Health. This color-coded regime is
27 precisely the sort of highly detailed regulatory scheme we might expect from the
28 California Legislature because our constitutional system vests the Legislature with
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 1
No. 20CECG03170
1 the responsibility of weighing competing public health, social, and economic
2 considerations in deciding public policy. The Governor, by contrast, violates the
3 California Constitution when making law—i.e., deciding fundamental policy for the
4 State.
5 The Legislature might still choose to enact a statute imposing industry closure
6 rules and various other restrictions on business operations. But at bare minimum, the
7 Legislature would be required to set guidelines that would control when and how the
8 Executive Branch could shut down businesses. Such legislation would have to include
9 safeguards to ensure that Executive Branch officials remain accountable to the
10 Legislature and to the public. Moreover, the Legislature would have to proceed in an
11 open and deliberative legislative process, which would give constituents opportunity
12 to raise concerns about what such a regime would mean for their businesses, for their
13 employees, and for their livelihoods.
14 Daryn Coleman, owner of Ghost Golf, Inc., in Fresno, never had the opportunity
15 to voice his concerns. His business has been shut down under the Governor’s
16 continuing orders for all but four days since March 19, 2020. As a result, Ghost Golf
17 faces the prospect of permanent closure and bankruptcy if it is not permitted to reopen
18 soon. Likewise, Sol y Luna in Bakersfield, faces serious financial hardship and the
19 prospect of closure and bankruptcy if the Governor’s restrictions on indoor operations
20 continue much longer. But its owner, Nieves Rubio, has no recourse in raising
21 concerns with her elected legislators because it is the Governor who has made the
22 rules here. Accordingly, Ghost Golf and Sol y Luna, along with their owners, now seek
23 immediate relief before this Court because they will suffer irreparable harm if the
24 Governor is allowed to continue enforcing his Blueprint regime much longer.
25 Plaintiffs recognize the seriousness of COVID-19 and take the safety of their
26 customers and staff seriously. If permitted to reopen, Ghost Golf would ensure social
27 distancing and would maintain extensive protocols to safeguard its patrons. Likewise,
28 Sol y Luna would continue to abide by CDC guidance and best industry practices to
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 2
No. 20CECG03170
1 ensure safety. Plaintiffs seek only an injunction to prevent the continued enforcement
2 of unlawful restrictions that threaten to sink their businesses.
3 STATEMENT OF FACTS
4 Governor Newsom and CDPH’s Continuing Restrictions on Business
5 In response to the novel coronavirus, Governor Newsom declared a state of
6 emergency in California on March 4, 2020. Complaint Exhibit 1. He then issued a
7 general stay-at-home order on March 19, 2020, which indefinitely prohibited “non-
8 essential businesses” from operating. E.O. N-33-20; Complaint Exhibit 2. All non-
9 essential businesses remained closed until May 4, 2020, when Governor Newsom
10 issued E.O. N-60-20, which allowed the State to begin reopening non-essential
11 businesses in phases. Complaint Exhibit 3. The May 4th Order also delegated
12 authority to the California Public Health Officer “to take any action she deems
13 necessary to protect public health in the face of the threat posed by COVID-19.” Id.
14 On July 1, 2020, Governor Newsom back-tracked on reopening because of rising
15 COVID-19 cases in parts of the State. He ordered many businesses, including dine-in
16 restaurants and family entertainment centers, to cease indoor operations in counties
17 that were on the “State’s County Monitoring List,” which then included Fresno and
18 Kern Counties. Complaint Exhibit 4. On July 13, 2020, Governor Newsom required
19 closure of indoor operations for dine-in restaurants and family entertainment centers
20 statewide, and imposed restrictions on indoor operations for various other business in
21 the counties that were on the State’s County Monitoring List. E.O. N-60-20;
22 Complaint Exhibit 5.
23 On August 28, 2020, Governor Newsom and the California Department of
24 Public Health (CDPH) announced that they were replacing the County Monitoring
25 List with the “Blueprint for a Safer Economy.” The Blueprint assigns each county a
26 color (purple, red, orange, or yellow) depending on its assessed risk level for COVID-
27 19 transmission and imposes corresponding restrictions for different industry
28 ///
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 3
No. 20CECG03170
1 sectors. 1 Complaint Exhibit 6. The color-coding for each county is updated every other
2 Tuesday, which means that affected businesses have no certainty as to what rules will
3 govern for more than two weeks at a time.
4 Under the Blueprint regime indoor family entertainment centers must remain
5 closed indefinitely so long as a county is classified as either “purple” or “red.” They
6 may operate at only 25% capacity in counties classified as “orange.” But even under
7 the most lenient color-coding (“yellow”), family entertainment centers are limited to
8 operating at just 50% capacity—notwithstanding whatever health and safety
9 measures the owner might have in place.
10 Likewise, the Blueprint regime prohibits indoor operations for restaurants in
11 “purple counties” and imposes restrictions on indoor operations in the other tiers. For
12 example, in “red counties” restaurants are limited to operating at 25% capacity and
13 they may not, under any condition, seat more than 100 people. In “orange counties”
14 restaurants are prohibited from operating at more than 50% capacity and they may
15 not, under any condition, seat more than 200 people. And even in “yellow counties”
16 restaurants remain restricted to 50% capacity.
17 Notably there is no “green” category under the Blueprint regime. That is by
18 design. In the Governor’s words: “We don’t put a green because we don’t believe that
19 there is a green light . . . [to] go back to the way things were . . . .” Complaint Exhibit
20 9. Instead, the Governor made clear his intention of continuing to govern under this
21 Blueprint regime indefinitely “until there is a vaccine . . . .” Id.
22 Ghost Golf Faces Permanent Closure Under the Blueprint Regime
23 Daryn Coleman owns and operates Ghost Golf, Inc., a unique indoor miniature
24 golf venue themed like a haunted house. Coleman Declaration ¶ 6. Ghost Golf has
25 been shut down entirely since March 19, 2020, except for four days at the end of June
26
1 The assessments are based on the 7-day average of both positivity percentages and
27 average rates per 100,000 people. Complaint Exhibit 6. Also, CDPH now considers
transmission rates in disadvantaged communities as an equity factor that may make
28 it more difficult for a county to move into a less restrictive color-coding category. Id.
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 4
No. 20CECG03170
1 when it was briefly allowed to reopen. ¶¶ 12-15. Ghost Golf spent more money in
2 preparing to reopen than it made in profits during those four days. ¶ 16. Under the
3 Blueprint regime, Ghost Golf is prohibited from opening its doors until CDPH moves
4 Fresno County into the “orange” category or possibly even the “yellow” category. 2
5 Because Ghost Golf has been closed for so long, it is now facing the very real
6 possibility of a permanent closure and or bankruptcy and the loss of Coleman’s life
7 savings. ¶¶ 37-38. Without incoming revenue, Ghost Golf has struggled to pay its
8 continuing overhead expenses and has been unable to pay even reduced rent, which
9 means the debt on its commercial lease has ballooned. ¶¶ 26-28. With mounting debts
10 and no hope on the horizon under the Blueprint regime, Ghost Golf faces a bleak
11 future. It has already missed out on the Halloween holiday, its peak season for the
12 year. Coleman Declaration ¶¶ 32-33. If not permitted to reopen and begin bringing in
13 revenue during the upcoming holiday season—Thanksgiving and Christmas—the
14 odds of permanent closure grow higher still. Coleman Declaration ¶ 33. If the
15 Blueprint regime requires continued closure into the spring of 2021, it is difficult to
16 see how Ghost Golf could ever hope to recover. Coleman Declaration ¶ 35.
17 Sol y Luna Faces Permanent Closure Under the Blueprint Regime
18 Nieves Rubio opened Sol y Luna, a Mexican Restaurant in Bakersfield,
19 California, in 2015. Rubio Declaration ¶ 2-3. On March 19, 2020, Sol y Luna was shut
20 down by the Governor’s orders. ¶ 4. The restaurant was allowed to reopen June 1,
21 2020, and did so after making significant investments to keep its patrons safe. ¶¶ 8,
22 11-14. However, it was forced to close indoor dining again under the Governor’s
23 directive on July 1, 2020. ¶ 9. Sol y Luna was then restricted to operating on its patio,
24 which has proven unprofitable. ¶¶ 9, 22.
25 Under the Blueprint regime, Sol y Luna was only recently allowed to begin
26 operating at 25% capacity indoors because Kern County was reclassified from “purple”
27 2 The Blueprint regime only allows indoor family entertainment centers to open in the
“orange” category for “naturally distanced activities.” It is unclear from existing
28 CDPH guidance whether indoor golf counts as a “naturally distanced” activity.
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 5
No. 20CECG03170
1 to “red” in October; however, CDPH may (at any point) reclassify Kern County again—
2 moving it back into the purple category. Rubio Declaration ¶ 20. As such, Sol y Luna
3 may be restricted to patio seating during the winter months. But Sol y Luna cannot
4 be profitable even operating indoors if limited to 25% capacity. ¶¶ 18-19.
5 Each month since March, Sol y Luna has spent more money on overhead and
6 payroll than it has taken in. Rubio Declaration ¶ 25. Sol y Luna cannot continue much
7 longer unless something changes. In November Sol y Luna anticipates that it will
8 burn through the remainder of its forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loans. ¶ 23.
9 At that point it will be forced to begin drawing from its Economic Injury Disaster Loan
10 (EIDL), which must be paid back with interest. ¶ 24. Sol y Luna projects that it will
11 run out of EIDL money in January if it remains subject to restrictions under the
12 Blueprint regime. ¶ 25. At that point Sol y Luna faces the prospect of permanent
13 closure unless it can find some way to be profitable with continuing restrictions, which
14 is unlikely given the restaurant’s experience over the past seven months. Rubio
15 Declaration ¶ 25.
16 LEGAL BACKGROUND
17 Separation of Powers Under the California Constitution
18 The California Constitution imposes a strict separation of powers in Article III,
19 Section 3, which provides that: “The powers of state government are legislative,
20 executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not
21 exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution.” The
22 Constitution vests all legislative powers in the California Legislature. Cal. Const.
23 art. IV. The Governor is vested with only “executive power.” Cal. Const. art. V.
24 Therefore, the Governor has no inherent rulemaking authority, even during an
25 emergency. Prof’l Engineers in California Gov’t v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal. 4th 989,
26 1015 (2010) (holding that the Governor lacked inherent power to respond to a fiscal
27 emergency); Brown v. Chiang, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1203, 1214 (2011) (collecting cases
28 standing for this proposition).
Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 6
No. 20CECG03170
1 The Governor’s Emergency Powers
2 Under the California Emergency Services Act, a Governor may declare a State
3 of Emergency upon declaring that conditions exist presenting “extreme peril to the
4 safety of persons and property within the state . . . .” Cal. Gov’t Code § 8558. A
5 Governor’s State of Emergency Declaration may continue so long as conditions
6 threatening public health or private property exist. The Act imposes no time limit on
7 the duration of an Emergency Declaration. Cal. Gov’t Code § 8626. Upon issuing an
8 Emergency Declaration, the Governor may exercise the following powers:
9 • Direct State Personnel and Resources. The Governor may make use of all
10 state personnel, equipment, and facilities in responding to an emergency. Cal.
11 Gov’t Code § 8628. See also Cal. Gov’t Code § 8628.5.
12 • Suspend Law. The Governor may suspend “regulatory statute[s]” and
13 regulations where “strict compliance . . . would in any way prevent, hinder, or
14 delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 8571.
15 See also Cal. Gov’t Code § 8627.5.
16 • Complete Authority Over Agencies and Police Power. The Governor has
17 “complete authority over all agencies of the state government and the right to
18 exercise within the area designated all police power vested in the state by the
19 Constitution and laws of the State of California . . . .” Cal. Gov’t Code § 8627.
20 • Issue Pertinent Orders. Consistent with the foregoing powers, the Governor
21 may “promulgate, issue, and enforce such orders and regulations as he deems
22 necessary.” Id. See also Cal. Gov’t Code § 8567. These orders have force of law,
23 and a violation is a misdemeanor. Cal. Gov’t Code § 8665.
24 The Department of Public Health’s Powers
25 The Health and Safety Code confers authority for CDPH to take the following
26 actions in response to the spread of disease in the State of California:
27 • Quarantine, Isolate, Inspect, and Disinfect. The Department may
28 “quarantine, isolate, inspect, and disinfect persons . . . [and] places . . . [if] the
Preview
1 LUKE WAKE, No. 264647 E-Mail: lwake@pacificlegal.org 2 DANIEL M. ORTNER, No. 329866 E-Mail: dortner@pacificlegal.org E-FILED 3 Pacific Legal Foundation 11/12/2020 10:57 AM 930 G Street Superior Court of California 4 Sacramento, California 95814 County of Fresno Telephone: (916) 419-7111 By: I. Herrera, Deputy 5 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ghost Golf, Inc., et al. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 11 GHOST GOLF, INC., DARYN Case No. 20CECG03170 COLEMAN, SOL Y LUNA MEXICAN 12 CUISINE, and NIEVES RUBIO, MEMORANDUM 13 IN SUPPORT OF Plaintiffs, 14 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE v. RELIEF 15 GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official Date: December 15, 2020 16 capacity as Governor of California, Time: 3:30 p.m. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official Location: Department 501 17 capacity as Attorney General of Judge: The. Hon. D. Tyler Tharpe 18 California, SANDRA SHEWRY, in her Date Action filed: Oct. 26, 2020 official capacity as Acting Director of Trial Date: 19 the California Department of Public Health, ERICA S. PAN, in her official 20 capacity as Acting State Public Health 21 Officer, 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, No. 20CECG03170 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page(s) 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................ii 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iii 5 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 6 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 3 7 LEGAL BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 6 8 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 8 9 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 9 10 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................... 9 11 II. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS ........................ 10 12 A. The Emergency Services Act Does Not Authorize the Governor to Dictate Generally Applicable Rules Restricting Business ..................... 10 13 B. An Expansive Reading of Section 8627 Violates the Non-Delegation 14 Doctrine .................................................................................................... 12 15 i. If Section 8627 Truly Grants All the Police Power of the State to the Governor, Then It Allows Him to Set 16 Fundamental Policy ...................................................................... 13 17 ii. If Section 8627 Truly Grants All the Police Power of the State to the Governor, Then It Does Not Provide Adequate 18 Guidance ........................................................................................ 14 19 iii. Section 8627 Lacks Requisite Safeguards Under the Governor’s Open-Ended Construction ......................................... 19 20 C. CDPH Lacks Statutory Authority to Issue Generally Applicable Rules 21 Restricting Business Activity .................................................................. 23 22 II. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS AN INJUNCTION ................ 25 23 A. The Plaintiffs Have No Adequate Legal Remedy ................................... 25 24 B. The Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm .......................................... 25 25 C. An Injunction Would Remedy a Serious Harm and Would Be Narrowly Tailored to Minimize Any Harm to the Public ...................... 26 26 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 27 27 28 Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, ii No. 20CECG03170 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) ...................... 14 5 Alaska v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough, 736 P.2d 1140 (Alaska 1987) ........................ 16 6 Am. Distilling Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 55 Cal. App. 2d 799 (1942) ............................................................................... 12, 17 7 Am. Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Commc’ns, Inc., 8 750 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1985)................................................................................. 26 9 Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Connally, 337 F. Supp. 737 (D.D.C. 1971) ............................................................. 20 10 Ex parte Arata, 52 Cal. App. 380 (1921)...................................................................... 23 11 Bailey v. Pritzker, 12 No. 5-20-0148, 2020 WL 2116566 (Ill. App. Ct. May 1, 2020)............................... 25 13 Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129 (1976) ............................................ 13, 18 14 Brown v. Chiang, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1203 (2011).......................................................... 6 15 California Retail Portfolio Fund GMBH & Co. KG v. Hopkins Real Estate Grp., 193 Cal. App. 4th 849 (2011) ............................................................. 26 16 California State Auto Ass’n Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Downey, 17 96 Cal. App. 2d 876 (1950) ..................................................................................... 15 18 Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 140 S. Ct. 2603 (2020) ............................ 21 19 Ex parte Cannon, 167 Cal. 142 (1914) ......................................................................... 23 20 In re Certified Questions From United States Dist. Court, W. Dist. of Michigan, S. Div., 21 No. 161492, 2020 WL 5877599 (Mich. Oct. 2, 2020)................................... 16, 18-19 22 Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Res. Bd., 11 Cal. 3d 801 (1974) .............................................................................................. 14 23 Cotta v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 157 Cal. App. 4th 1550 (2007) ....................... 13 24 Cty. of Butler v. Wolf, 25 No. 2:20-CV-677, 2020 WL 5510690 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2020) ...................... 21, 25 26 Ex parte Culver, 187 Cal. 437 (1921) ............................................................................. 8 27 Davenport v. Blue Cross of California, 52 Cal. App. 4th 435 (1997) .......................... 26 28 Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, iii No. 20CECG03170 1 Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1518 (1999) ............................................................ 24 2 Ex parte Dillon, 44 Cal. App. 239 (1919) ..................................................................... 23 3 Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975) ........................................................... 26 4 Elkhorn Baptist Church v. Brown, 5 No. 20CV17482, 2020 WL 2532528 (Or. Cir. May 18, 2020) ................................ 25 6 Farmers Inc. Exch. v. California, 175 Cal. App. 3d 494 (1985) .................................. 10 7 First Baptist Church v. Kelly, 455 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (D. Kan. 2020) ......................... 25 8 Friedman v. Friedman, 20 Cal. App. 4th 876 (1993), as modified on denial of reh’g (Dec. 27, 1993) ................................................................................ 25 9 G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 10 23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir. 1994)................................................................................... 26 11 Gaylord v. City of Pasadena, 175 Cal. 433 (1917)....................................................... 15 12 Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 3 Cal. 5th 1118 (2017)............................................................................ 13, 15, 17-18 13 Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) ......................................................... 22 14 Hewitt v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 148 Cal. 590 (1906) ............................ 12 15 IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, 35 Cal. 3d 63 (1983) .................................................... 9 16 Ex parte Junqua, 10 Cal. App. 602 (1909) ............................................................. 12-13 17 Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal. 2d 371 (1968) ........................................................... 13, 17-18 18 Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 19 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................. 16 20 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) ....................................... 26 21 Nat’l Tax-Limitation Comm. v. Schwarzenegger, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4 (2003)................ 19 22 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ......................................................... 23 23 On Fire Christian Center, Inc. v. Fischer, 453 F.Supp.3d 901 (W.D. Ky. 2020) ....................................................................... 25 24 Pac. Legal Found. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 25 29 Cal. 3d 101 (1981) .............................................................................................. 11 26 Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) ........................................................... 14 27 People v. Garcia, 2 Cal. 5th 792 (2017) ....................................................................... 10 28 Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, iv No. 20CECG03170 1 People v. Nash, 52 Cal. App. 5th 1041 (2020), review filed (Sept. 10, 2020) .................................. 22 2 People’s Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. State Franchise Tax Bd., 3 110 Cal. App. 2d 696 (1952) ................................................................................... 14 4 In re Peppers, 189 Cal. 682 (1922) ............................................................................... 12 5 Prof’l Engineers in California Gov’t v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal. 4th 989 (2010)............................................................................................... 6 6 Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2020) ........................................................... 25 7 Rock House Fitness v. Acton, 8 Case No. 20CV000631, Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio) (issued May 20, 2020) ................. 25 9 Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52 (1915) ........................................................................ 13 10 State Bd. of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, 11 40 Cal. 2d 436, 254 P.2d 29 (1953) ......................................................................... 13 12 Synar v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 1374 (D.D.C. 1986) .......................................... 16 13 Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri, 208 Cal. App. 4th 1342 (2012) .................................... 9 14 Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc. v. California, 213 Cal. App. 3d 131 (1989) ....................... 10 15 United States v. Emerson, 846 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................ 20 16 Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Nat. Res., 921 P.2d 1134 (Alaska 1996) .................................................................................. 20 17 Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, 942 N.W.2d 900 (Wis. 2020) ..................................... 25 18 Statutes 19 35 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 7301 .................................................................... 19 20 10 Guam Code Ann. § 19405........................................................................................ 22 21 23 V.I.C. § 1005 ............................................................................................................ 19 22 Alaska Stat. Ann. § 26.23.020 ..................................................................................... 19 23 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8558 ................................................................................................... 7 24 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8567 ................................................................................................... 7 25 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8571 ............................................................................................. 7, 11 26 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8626 ................................................................................................... 7 27 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8627 ......................................................................................... passim 28 Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, v No. 20CECG03170 1 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8627.5 ................................................................................................ 7 2 Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 8628; 8628.5; 8665; 8567 ........................................................... 7, 11 3 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8628.5 ................................................................................................ 7 4 Cal. Gov’t Code § 8665 ................................................................................................... 7 5 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120130(c) ......................................................................... 8 6 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120130(d)......................................................................... 8 7 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120135 ............................................................................. 8 8 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120140 .................................................................. 8, 23-25 9 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120145 ....................................................................... 8, 24 10 Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 120145, 120130 ........................................................... 23 11 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120150 ............................................................................. 8 12 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-33.5-704 ...................................................................................... 19 13 D.C. Stat. § 7-2306 ....................................................................................................... 19 14 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 48-924 .............................................................................................. 19 15 La. Stat. Ann. § 29:724 ................................................................................................ 22 16 M.C.L. § 30.403 ............................................................................................................ 19 17 Minn. Stat. Ann. § 12.31 .............................................................................................. 19 18 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4:45 .......................................................................................... 22 19 S.C. Code Ann. § 25-1-440 (a)(2) .................................................................................. 19 20 Utah Code Ann. § 53-2a-206 ........................................................................................ 19 21 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 43.06.220 .............................................................................. 19 22 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 323.10............................................................................................... 19 23 Miscellaneous 24 Cal. Const. art. IV .......................................................................................................... 6 25 Cal. Const. art. V............................................................................................................ 6 26 Cal. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, https://www.abc.ca.gov/law- and-policy/abc-act/ .................................................................................................. 11 27 28 Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, vi No. 20CECG03170 1 CDPH, Guidance for Private Gatherings (Oct. 9, 2020), https://www.cdph.ca.gov/ Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID- 2 19/CDPH-Guidance-for-the-Prevention-of-COVID-19-Transmission- for-Gatherings-10-09.aspx ...................................................................................... 15 3 CDPH, Guidance for Safer Halloween and Día de los Muertos 4 Celebrations during COVID-19 (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID- 5 19/Guidance-for-Safer-Halloween-and-Dia-de-los-Muertos- Celebrations-during-COVID-19.aspx ..................................................................... 15 6 Here Are the 2020 Bills Gov. Newsom Rejected or Signed into 7 California Law, Cal Matters (Oct. 1, 2020), https://laist.com/2020/10/01/here_are_the_2020_bills_gov_ 8 newsom_rejected_or_signed_into_california_law.php........................................... 21 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, vii No. 20CECG03170 1 INTRODUCTION 2 We are in the midst of a global pandemic, which presents difficult public policy 3 challenges for the State of California and unprecedented trials for many businesses 4 and families struggling from the economic fall-out. But while the Legislature has 5 enacted numerous bills since COVID-19 began, the Legislature has yet to weigh and 6 consider competing public health and economic concerns on the weighty question of 7 whether and when businesses should be required to close, or otherwise restricted in 8 their activities. Instead, the Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to resolve these 9 fundamental policy issues. 10 Since March 19, 2020 Governor Newsom has invoked the Emergency Services 11 Act (ESA) in unprecedented ways and claimed the unilateral authority to issue orders 12 prohibiting or restricting private conduct in whatever manner he deems necessary to 13 address the pandemic. After more than seven months, Governor Newsom continues to 14 make fundamental policy decisions for the state without any procedural, substantive 15 or temporal limitations on his use of emergency powers. But one-man rule is 16 antithetical the separation of powers enshrined in the California Constitution, 17 especially where—as here—the Governor claims an unfettered power to continue to 18 make rules regulating every aspect of civil society by “emergency order” on an 19 indefinite and on-going basis. 20 On August 28, 2020, Governor Newsom announced that he would not be lifting 21 emergency restrictions on business anytime in the foreseeable future. Instead, he 22 doubled-down on restrictions that he has had in place since July 1, 2020, and added 23 additional complexities to his hand-crafted and ever-evolving regulatory regime. His 24 new “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” assigns different colors to California counties 25 and corresponding restrictions for all sectors of the California economy, based on data 26 collected from the California Department of Public Health. This color-coded regime is 27 precisely the sort of highly detailed regulatory scheme we might expect from the 28 California Legislature because our constitutional system vests the Legislature with Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 1 No. 20CECG03170 1 the responsibility of weighing competing public health, social, and economic 2 considerations in deciding public policy. The Governor, by contrast, violates the 3 California Constitution when making law—i.e., deciding fundamental policy for the 4 State. 5 The Legislature might still choose to enact a statute imposing industry closure 6 rules and various other restrictions on business operations. But at bare minimum, the 7 Legislature would be required to set guidelines that would control when and how the 8 Executive Branch could shut down businesses. Such legislation would have to include 9 safeguards to ensure that Executive Branch officials remain accountable to the 10 Legislature and to the public. Moreover, the Legislature would have to proceed in an 11 open and deliberative legislative process, which would give constituents opportunity 12 to raise concerns about what such a regime would mean for their businesses, for their 13 employees, and for their livelihoods. 14 Daryn Coleman, owner of Ghost Golf, Inc., in Fresno, never had the opportunity 15 to voice his concerns. His business has been shut down under the Governor’s 16 continuing orders for all but four days since March 19, 2020. As a result, Ghost Golf 17 faces the prospect of permanent closure and bankruptcy if it is not permitted to reopen 18 soon. Likewise, Sol y Luna in Bakersfield, faces serious financial hardship and the 19 prospect of closure and bankruptcy if the Governor’s restrictions on indoor operations 20 continue much longer. But its owner, Nieves Rubio, has no recourse in raising 21 concerns with her elected legislators because it is the Governor who has made the 22 rules here. Accordingly, Ghost Golf and Sol y Luna, along with their owners, now seek 23 immediate relief before this Court because they will suffer irreparable harm if the 24 Governor is allowed to continue enforcing his Blueprint regime much longer. 25 Plaintiffs recognize the seriousness of COVID-19 and take the safety of their 26 customers and staff seriously. If permitted to reopen, Ghost Golf would ensure social 27 distancing and would maintain extensive protocols to safeguard its patrons. Likewise, 28 Sol y Luna would continue to abide by CDC guidance and best industry practices to Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 2 No. 20CECG03170 1 ensure safety. Plaintiffs seek only an injunction to prevent the continued enforcement 2 of unlawful restrictions that threaten to sink their businesses. 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 4 Governor Newsom and CDPH’s Continuing Restrictions on Business 5 In response to the novel coronavirus, Governor Newsom declared a state of 6 emergency in California on March 4, 2020. Complaint Exhibit 1. He then issued a 7 general stay-at-home order on March 19, 2020, which indefinitely prohibited “non- 8 essential businesses” from operating. E.O. N-33-20; Complaint Exhibit 2. All non- 9 essential businesses remained closed until May 4, 2020, when Governor Newsom 10 issued E.O. N-60-20, which allowed the State to begin reopening non-essential 11 businesses in phases. Complaint Exhibit 3. The May 4th Order also delegated 12 authority to the California Public Health Officer “to take any action she deems 13 necessary to protect public health in the face of the threat posed by COVID-19.” Id. 14 On July 1, 2020, Governor Newsom back-tracked on reopening because of rising 15 COVID-19 cases in parts of the State. He ordered many businesses, including dine-in 16 restaurants and family entertainment centers, to cease indoor operations in counties 17 that were on the “State’s County Monitoring List,” which then included Fresno and 18 Kern Counties. Complaint Exhibit 4. On July 13, 2020, Governor Newsom required 19 closure of indoor operations for dine-in restaurants and family entertainment centers 20 statewide, and imposed restrictions on indoor operations for various other business in 21 the counties that were on the State’s County Monitoring List. E.O. N-60-20; 22 Complaint Exhibit 5. 23 On August 28, 2020, Governor Newsom and the California Department of 24 Public Health (CDPH) announced that they were replacing the County Monitoring 25 List with the “Blueprint for a Safer Economy.” The Blueprint assigns each county a 26 color (purple, red, orange, or yellow) depending on its assessed risk level for COVID- 27 19 transmission and imposes corresponding restrictions for different industry 28 /// Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 3 No. 20CECG03170 1 sectors. 1 Complaint Exhibit 6. The color-coding for each county is updated every other 2 Tuesday, which means that affected businesses have no certainty as to what rules will 3 govern for more than two weeks at a time. 4 Under the Blueprint regime indoor family entertainment centers must remain 5 closed indefinitely so long as a county is classified as either “purple” or “red.” They 6 may operate at only 25% capacity in counties classified as “orange.” But even under 7 the most lenient color-coding (“yellow”), family entertainment centers are limited to 8 operating at just 50% capacity—notwithstanding whatever health and safety 9 measures the owner might have in place. 10 Likewise, the Blueprint regime prohibits indoor operations for restaurants in 11 “purple counties” and imposes restrictions on indoor operations in the other tiers. For 12 example, in “red counties” restaurants are limited to operating at 25% capacity and 13 they may not, under any condition, seat more than 100 people. In “orange counties” 14 restaurants are prohibited from operating at more than 50% capacity and they may 15 not, under any condition, seat more than 200 people. And even in “yellow counties” 16 restaurants remain restricted to 50% capacity. 17 Notably there is no “green” category under the Blueprint regime. That is by 18 design. In the Governor’s words: “We don’t put a green because we don’t believe that 19 there is a green light . . . [to] go back to the way things were . . . .” Complaint Exhibit 20 9. Instead, the Governor made clear his intention of continuing to govern under this 21 Blueprint regime indefinitely “until there is a vaccine . . . .” Id. 22 Ghost Golf Faces Permanent Closure Under the Blueprint Regime 23 Daryn Coleman owns and operates Ghost Golf, Inc., a unique indoor miniature 24 golf venue themed like a haunted house. Coleman Declaration ¶ 6. Ghost Golf has 25 been shut down entirely since March 19, 2020, except for four days at the end of June 26 1 The assessments are based on the 7-day average of both positivity percentages and 27 average rates per 100,000 people. Complaint Exhibit 6. Also, CDPH now considers transmission rates in disadvantaged communities as an equity factor that may make 28 it more difficult for a county to move into a less restrictive color-coding category. Id. Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 4 No. 20CECG03170 1 when it was briefly allowed to reopen. ¶¶ 12-15. Ghost Golf spent more money in 2 preparing to reopen than it made in profits during those four days. ¶ 16. Under the 3 Blueprint regime, Ghost Golf is prohibited from opening its doors until CDPH moves 4 Fresno County into the “orange” category or possibly even the “yellow” category. 2 5 Because Ghost Golf has been closed for so long, it is now facing the very real 6 possibility of a permanent closure and or bankruptcy and the loss of Coleman’s life 7 savings. ¶¶ 37-38. Without incoming revenue, Ghost Golf has struggled to pay its 8 continuing overhead expenses and has been unable to pay even reduced rent, which 9 means the debt on its commercial lease has ballooned. ¶¶ 26-28. With mounting debts 10 and no hope on the horizon under the Blueprint regime, Ghost Golf faces a bleak 11 future. It has already missed out on the Halloween holiday, its peak season for the 12 year. Coleman Declaration ¶¶ 32-33. If not permitted to reopen and begin bringing in 13 revenue during the upcoming holiday season—Thanksgiving and Christmas—the 14 odds of permanent closure grow higher still. Coleman Declaration ¶ 33. If the 15 Blueprint regime requires continued closure into the spring of 2021, it is difficult to 16 see how Ghost Golf could ever hope to recover. Coleman Declaration ¶ 35. 17 Sol y Luna Faces Permanent Closure Under the Blueprint Regime 18 Nieves Rubio opened Sol y Luna, a Mexican Restaurant in Bakersfield, 19 California, in 2015. Rubio Declaration ¶ 2-3. On March 19, 2020, Sol y Luna was shut 20 down by the Governor’s orders. ¶ 4. The restaurant was allowed to reopen June 1, 21 2020, and did so after making significant investments to keep its patrons safe. ¶¶ 8, 22 11-14. However, it was forced to close indoor dining again under the Governor’s 23 directive on July 1, 2020. ¶ 9. Sol y Luna was then restricted to operating on its patio, 24 which has proven unprofitable. ¶¶ 9, 22. 25 Under the Blueprint regime, Sol y Luna was only recently allowed to begin 26 operating at 25% capacity indoors because Kern County was reclassified from “purple” 27 2 The Blueprint regime only allows indoor family entertainment centers to open in the “orange” category for “naturally distanced activities.” It is unclear from existing 28 CDPH guidance whether indoor golf counts as a “naturally distanced” activity. Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 5 No. 20CECG03170 1 to “red” in October; however, CDPH may (at any point) reclassify Kern County again— 2 moving it back into the purple category. Rubio Declaration ¶ 20. As such, Sol y Luna 3 may be restricted to patio seating during the winter months. But Sol y Luna cannot 4 be profitable even operating indoors if limited to 25% capacity. ¶¶ 18-19. 5 Each month since March, Sol y Luna has spent more money on overhead and 6 payroll than it has taken in. Rubio Declaration ¶ 25. Sol y Luna cannot continue much 7 longer unless something changes. In November Sol y Luna anticipates that it will 8 burn through the remainder of its forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loans. ¶ 23. 9 At that point it will be forced to begin drawing from its Economic Injury Disaster Loan 10 (EIDL), which must be paid back with interest. ¶ 24. Sol y Luna projects that it will 11 run out of EIDL money in January if it remains subject to restrictions under the 12 Blueprint regime. ¶ 25. At that point Sol y Luna faces the prospect of permanent 13 closure unless it can find some way to be profitable with continuing restrictions, which 14 is unlikely given the restaurant’s experience over the past seven months. Rubio 15 Declaration ¶ 25. 16 LEGAL BACKGROUND 17 Separation of Powers Under the California Constitution 18 The California Constitution imposes a strict separation of powers in Article III, 19 Section 3, which provides that: “The powers of state government are legislative, 20 executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not 21 exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution.” The 22 Constitution vests all legislative powers in the California Legislature. Cal. Const. 23 art. IV. The Governor is vested with only “executive power.” Cal. Const. art. V. 24 Therefore, the Governor has no inherent rulemaking authority, even during an 25 emergency. Prof’l Engineers in California Gov’t v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal. 4th 989, 26 1015 (2010) (holding that the Governor lacked inherent power to respond to a fiscal 27 emergency); Brown v. Chiang, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1203, 1214 (2011) (collecting cases 28 standing for this proposition). Memo ISO Prelim. Inj. Relief, 6 No. 20CECG03170 1 The Governor’s Emergency Powers 2 Under the California Emergency Services Act, a Governor may declare a State 3 of Emergency upon declaring that conditions exist presenting “extreme peril to the 4 safety of persons and property within the state . . . .” Cal. Gov’t Code § 8558. A 5 Governor’s State of Emergency Declaration may continue so long as conditions 6 threatening public health or private property exist. The Act imposes no time limit on 7 the duration of an Emergency Declaration. Cal. Gov’t Code § 8626. Upon issuing an 8 Emergency Declaration, the Governor may exercise the following powers: 9 • Direct State Personnel and Resources. The Governor may make use of all 10 state personnel, equipment, and facilities in responding to an emergency. Cal. 11 Gov’t Code § 8628. See also Cal. Gov’t Code § 8628.5. 12 • Suspend Law. The Governor may suspend “regulatory statute[s]” and 13 regulations where “strict compliance . . . would in any way prevent, hinder, or 14 delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 8571. 15 See also Cal. Gov’t Code § 8627.5. 16 • Complete Authority Over Agencies and Police Power. The Governor has 17 “complete authority over all agencies of the state government and the right to 18 exercise within the area designated all police power vested in the state by the 19 Constitution and laws of the State of California . . . .” Cal. Gov’t Code § 8627. 20 • Issue Pertinent Orders. Consistent with the foregoing powers, the Governor 21 may “promulgate, issue, and enforce such orders and regulations as he deems 22 necessary.” Id. See also Cal. Gov’t Code § 8567. These orders have force of law, 23 and a violation is a misdemeanor. Cal. Gov’t Code § 8665. 24 The Department of Public Health’s Powers 25 The Health and Safety Code confers authority for CDPH to take the following 26 actions in response to the spread of disease in the State of California: 27 • Quarantine, Isolate, Inspect, and Disinfect. The Department may 28 “quarantine, isolate, inspect, and disinfect persons . . . [and] places . . . [if] the