Adam Brandy et al v. Alex Villanueva et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-25883116 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiffs National Rifle Association of America, DG2A Enterprises Inc., Firearms Policy Coalition, Daemion Garr, Adam Brandy, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Attorney George M Lee added to party Adam Brandy(pty:pla), Attorney George M Lee added to party California Gun Rights Foundation(pty:pla), Attorney George M Lee added to party DG2A Enterprises Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney George M Lee added to party Firearms Policy Coalition(pty:pla), Attorney George M Lee added to party Daemion Garr(pty:pla), Attorney George M Lee added to party National Rifle Association of America (pty:pla), Attorney George M Lee added to party Second Amendment Foundation(pty:pla))(Lee, George)

Download PDF
Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 George M. Lee (SBN 172982) gml@seilerepstein.com SEILER EPSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511 Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ADAM BRANDY, an individual; DAEMION GARR, an individual; DG2A ENTERPRISES INC., d.b.a. GUN WORLD; SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; CALIFORNIA GUN RIGHTS FOUNDATION; NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; and FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC., 18 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiffs, 19 20 Case No. vs. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALEX VILLANUEVA, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Los Angeles County, California, and in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Operations; GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor and Commander in Chief of the State of California; SONIA Y. ANGELL, in her official capacity as California Public Health Officer; BARBARA FERRER, in her official –1– Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:2 1 2 3 capacity as Director of Los Angeles County Department Of Public Health; and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendants. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Plaintiffs Adam Brandy, et al. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel of record, bring this complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the named Defendants, and allege as follows: 10 INTRODUCTION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. In California, individuals are required to purchase and transfer firearms and ammunition through state and federally licensed dealers or face serious criminal penalties. 2. Subjective political opinions are irrelevant to this truth: State and federal firearms licensees are essential businesses that provide access to constitutionally protected rights. Full stop. Californians cannot exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms without such businesses. 3. Shuttering access to arms necessarily shutters the Constitutional right to those arms. By forcing California’s duly licensed, essential businesses to close or eliminate key services for the general public, California authorities are foreclosing the only lawful means to buy, sell, and transfer firearms and ammunition available to typical, law-abiding Californians. Such a de facto prohibition on the right to keep –2– Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:3 1 2 3 and bear arms is categorically unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. 4. The circumstances posed by the Novel Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) 4 outbreak are noteworthy, but do not excuse unlawful government infringements 5 upon freedom. In fact, the importance of maintaining the ongoing activities of 6 7 8 9 essential businesses for the safety, health, and welfare of Californians makes Plaintiffs’ point: the need for enhanced safety during uncertain times is precisely when Plaintiffs and their members must be able to exercise their fundamental rights 10 11 12 13 14 to keep and bear arms. 5. The governmental infringements at issue are only compounding the very dangers they purportedly seek to mitigate. In this context, firearm and 15 ammunition retailers arguably provide the most essential business function possible 16 by enabling Californians to lawfully defend themselves, their loved ones and their 17 18 19 20 21 property. 6. The various Orders that have been put in place by the Governor of the State of California, the California Department of Public Health, the Los Angeles 22 County of Public Health, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff are unconstitutionally 23 vague, arbitrary and capricious, and violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendment 24 25 26 27 28 rights of Plaintiffs and similarly situated Californians. 7. State and local agency and county policies may not, legislatively or though mere fiat, as here, enact and/or enforce a suspension or deprivation of –3– Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:4 1 2 3 constitutional liberties during a time of crisis. And they certainly may not use a public health crisis as political cover to impose bans and restrictions on rights they 4 do not like. Their Orders, policies, and practices that do so much be immediately 5 restrained and enjoined to protect the fundamental rights of law-abiding 6 7 Californians. 8 PARTIES 9 Individual Plaintiffs 10 11 12 13 8. Plaintiff Adam Brandy is a natural person, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the County of Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff Brandy is not 14 prohibited from possessing or acquiring arms, including firearms and ammunition, 15 under state and federal law. Plaintiff Brandy is concerned about his safety and the 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 safety of his family, wants to exercise his rights and acquire arms, including firearms, ammunition, magazines, and appurtenances, and would do so, but for the reasonable and imminent fear of criminal prosecution under Defendants’ laws, policies, orders, practices, customs, and enforcement. 9. Plaintiff Daemion Garr is a natural person, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the County of Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff Garr is not prohibited from possessing or acquiring arms, including firearms and ammunition, under state and federal law. Plaintiff Garr is the owner and operator of DG2A 27 28 Enterprises Inc., d.b.a. Gun World (“Gun World”) in Burbank, California. Plaintiff –4– Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:5 1 2 3 Garr is concerned about his safety and the safety of his customers and the public. On behalf of himself and his customers, Plaintiff Garr would sell and transfer arms, 4 including firearms, ammunition, magazines, and appurtenances, and would do so, 5 but for the reasonable and imminent fear of criminal prosecution and loss of his 6 7 8 license under Defendants’ laws, policies, orders, practices, customs, and enforcement thereof. 9 Retailer Plaintiff 10 11 12 13 14 10. Plaintiff DG2A Enterprises Inc., d.b.a. Gun World, is a limited liability corporation and holds federal, state, and local licenses to conduct the sales of arms, including firearms, ammunition, magazines, and appurtenances, in Burbank, 15 California. Plaintiff Gun World is concerned about its safety and the safety of its 16 customers and the public. On behalf of itself and its customers, Plaintiff Gun World 17 18 19 20 21 22 would sell and transfer arms, including firearms, ammunition, magazines, and appurtenances, and would do so, but for the reasonable and imminent fear of criminal prosecution and loss of its license under Defendants’ laws, policies, orders, practices, customs, and enforcement thereof. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Institutional Plaintiffs 11. Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (“SAF”) is a nonprofit educational foundation incorporated under the laws of Washington with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. SAF seeks to preserve the effectiveness –5– Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:6 1 2 3 of the Second Amendment through education, research, publishing, and legal action programs focused on the Constitutional right to possess firearms, and the 4 consequences of gun control. SAF has over 650,000 members and supporters 5 nationwide, including thousands of members in California. SAF brings this action 6 7 8 9 on behalf of itself and its members. Individual Plaintiffs and Retailer Plaintiff are, each and every one, members of SAF. 12. Plaintiff California Gun Rights Foundation (“CGF”) is a nonprofit 10 11 foundation incorporated under the laws of California with its principal place of 12 business in Sacramento, California. CGF serves its members, supporters, and the 13 14 public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance 15 Second Amendment and related rights. CGF has thousands of members and 16 supporters in California, including in Los Angeles County and Individual and 17 18 19 20 21 Retailer Plaintiffs herein. The interpretation and enforcement of the Second Amendment directly impacts CGF’s organizational interests, as well as the rights of CGF’s members and supporters. CGF has expended and diverted resources, and 22 adversely and directly harmed, because of Defendants’ laws, policies, practices, and 23 customs challenged herein. CGF brings this action on behalf of itself, its members, 24 25 26 27 28 supporters who possess all the indicia of membership, and similarly situated members of the public. Individual Plaintiffs and Retailer Plaintiff are, each and every one, members of FPC. –6– Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:7 1 2 3 13. Plaintiff the National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with its 4 principal place of business in Fairfax, Virginia. The NRA is America’s leading 5 provider of gun-safety and marksmanship education for civilians and law 6 7 8 9 enforcement. It is also an important defender of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The NRA has over five million members, and its programs reach millions more. NRA’s members reside both outside and within the 10 11 State of California, including in Los Angeles County, California. NRA represents its 12 members and supporters and brings this action on behalf of itself, its members, 13 14 supporters who possess all the indicia of membership, and similarly situated 15 members of the public. NRA has expended and diverted resources, and adversely 16 and directly harmed, because of Defendants’ laws, policies, orders, practices, and 17 18 19 20 21 customs challenged herein. 14. Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (“FPC”) is a non-profit organization incorporated under the laws of Delaware with a place of business in 22 Sacramento, California. The purposes of FPC include defending and promoting the 23 People’s rights, especially but not limited to First and Second Amendment rights, 24 25 26 27 28 advancing individual liberty, and restoring freedom. FPC serves its members and the public through legislative advocacy, grassroots advocacy, litigation and legal efforts, research, education, outreach, and other programs. FPC’s members reside both –7– Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:8 1 2 3 outside and within the State of California, including in Los Angeles County, California. FPC represents its members and supporters — who include gun owners, 4 individuals who wish to acquire firearms and ammunition, licensed California 5 firearm retailers, and others — and brings this action on behalf of itself, its members, 6 7 8 9 supporters who possess all the indicia of membership, and similarly situated members of the public. FPC has expended and diverted resources, and adversely and directly harmed, because of Defendants’ laws, policies, orders, practices, and 10 11 customs challenged herein. Individual Plaintiffs and Retailer Plaintiff are, each and 12 every one, members of FPC. 13 State Defendants 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. Defendant Gavin Newsom is the current Governor and Commander-in- Chief of the State of California, and responsible for executing and administering California’s laws, orders, customs, practices, and policies at issue in this lawsuit. Defendant Newsom is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, and prior orders proclaiming a state of emergency to exist in California due to the threat of COVID-19. 16. Defendant Sonia Y. Angell is the California Public Health Officer. Defendant Angell is the head of the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”). The CDPH is the State department responsible for public health in California and a subdivision of the California Health and Human Services Agency –8– Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:9 1 2 3 (“CHHSA”). It enforces some of the laws in the California Health and Safety Codes, including those at issue herein. Defendant Angell is sued in her official capacity. Local Defendants 4 5 6 7 8 9 17. Defendant Alex Villanueva is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Los Angeles County and head of Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Operations. 18. Defendant Barbara Ferrer is sued in her official capacity as Director of 10 11 the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, a department of Defendant 12 County of Los Angeles. 13 14 19. Defendant County of Los Angeles, California is a local governmental 15 entity organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, 16 possessing legal personhood within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The County is 17 18 19 responsible for executing and administering its laws, orders, customs, practices, and policies at issue in this lawsuit. 20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20. This Court has jurisdiction over all claims for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, and 2202, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, as this action seeks to redress the deprivation under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of California, of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution. –9– Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:10 1 2 3 21. Venue lies in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ causes of action arose or exist in this District in which the action is 4 brought. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the venue rules of this State 5 specifically permit this action to be filed in Los Angeles, since Defendants maintain 6 7 offices within this District; Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 401(1). PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 8 9 22. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: 10 11 A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of 12 a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. 13 14 15 23. The Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess 16 and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 17 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). And it “elevates above all other interests the right of law- 18 19 20 21 abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Id at 635. 24. The Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States thought the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Privileges or Immunities Clauses. 22 23 24 25 26 27 McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010); id. at 805 (Thomas, J., concurring). 25. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part: 28 – 10 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:11 1 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge 2 the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 3 States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, 4 liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny 5 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of 6 the laws. 7 8 PERTINENT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 9 26. 10 11 12 13 Effective March 19, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-33-20,1 directing all individuals living in California to “stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the 14 federal critical infrastructure sectors.” This Order is in place until further notice. The 15 Order states that the Governor “may designate additional sectors” but does not 16 17 18 19 20 identify any other sectors or provide definitions or clarity on the scope and extent of such sectors. Further, the Order provides that Californians working in critical infrastructure sectors may continue their work because of the importance of these 21 sectors to Californians’ health and well-being. The Order states that Californians 22 must nonetheless have access to “necessities” but the term is not fully defined. It 23 24 25 provides that when “people need to leave their homes or places of residence, whether to obtain or perform” critical infrastructure, or “to otherwise facilitate authorized 26 27 28 1 Executive Department, State of California, Executive https://covid19.ca.gov/img/Executive-Order-N-33-20.pdf. – 11 – Order N-33-20, Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:12 1 2 3 necessary activities,” should practice social distancing. The Order does not define what is meant by “authorized necessary activities.” The Order “shall be enforceable 4 pursuant to California law, including, but not limited to, Government Code section 5 8665.” 6 7 27. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter or who refuses or willfully neglects to obey any lawful order or regulation promulgated or issued as provided in this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for not to exceed six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Government Code section 8665 states: 28. On March 19, 2020, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, through its Health Officer, issued an Order titled, “Safer at Home Order for Control of COVID-19,” which addressed, among other things, the “Closure of NonEssential Businesses and Areas.” This Order clarifies that it does not prohibit any 20 individual or family from “shopping at Essential Businesses” provided social 21 distancing is practiced “to the extent practicable.” Without doubt, however, the 22 23 Order “requires all … non-essential businesses to close” and do so “immediately.” 24 The Order’s reach extends to “all cities in Los Angeles County (except Pasadena and 25 Long Beach). Further, the order states that “[v]iolation of this Order is a 26 27 28 misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment, fine, or both under California Health and Section Code 120295 et seq.” – 12 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:13 1 29. 2 Any person who violates Section 120130 or any section in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 120175, but excluding Section 120195), is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment for a term of not more than 90 days, or by both. He or she is guilty of a separate offense for each day that the violation continued. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Health & Safety Code section 120295 states: 30. “Non-Essential Retail Businesses” are defined as “retail establishments that provide goods and services to the public that do not come within the definition of Essential Businesses set forth in Paragraph 13 of this Order.” Paragraph 13 defines 13 “Essential Businesses.” “Essential Businesses” are … other establishments engaged 14 in the retail sale of …household consumer products … and this includes “stores that 15 16 17 sell … other … products necessary to maintaining the safety … and essential operation of residences.” Other “Essential Businesses” encompass” 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (h) … other service providers who provide services to maintain the safety… and essential operation to properties and other Essential Businesses. … (q) Businesses that provide parts and service for Essential Infrastructure; … 25 26 27 28 – 13 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:14 1 (u) Military/Defense Contractors/FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Centers) ….”2 2 3 4 5 31. On March 26, 2020, Defendant Sheriff Villanueva, through the Los Angeles County Sheriff twitter account, released an image of his March 26, 2020 6 Order stating, “[b]y order of the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, gun and ammunition 7 stores are not considered essential businesses and must close to the general public, 8 9 10 in Compliance with Executive Order-N-33-20 and County of Los Angeles Safer at Home Order for Control of COVID-19.”3 11 STATEMENT OF FACTS 12 13 14 15 32. not limited to, firearms, ammunition, magazines, and required appurtenances. 33. 16 17 Individuals have a right to buy, sell, and transfer arms, including but On March 4, 2020, Defendant Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency as a result of COVID-19. 18 34. 19 20 On March 19, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-33-20 identifying operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors, as 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 27 http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1070029_COVID19_SaferAtHome_HealthOfficerOrder_20200319_Signed.pdf. 28 3 https://twitter.com/LACoSheriff/status/1243237017049128961/photo/1. – 14 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:15 1 2 3 outlined at https://www.cisa.gov/identifying-critical-infrastructure-during-covid19.4 35. 4 5 6 7 State Public Health Officer, “order[ing] all individuals living in the State of California to stay home or at their place of residence.”5 36. 8 9 On or about March 19, 2020, Defendant Angell issued an Order of the Defendant Angell’s Order provided exceptions for 16 “critical infrastructure sectors” identified by the federal government, which were permitted 10 11 to remain open due to their importance to Californians’ health and well-being. These 12 sectors “are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or 13 14 15 destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, economic security, public health or safety, or any combination thereof.” 16 17 18 19 37. authority to “designate additional sectors as critical in order to protect the health and well-being of all Californians.” 20 38. 21 22 Defendant Angell’s Order also reserved to Defendant Angell the An express purpose of Defendant Angell’s order is to “establish consistency across the state.” 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Executive Department, State of California, Executive Order N-33-20, https://covid19.ca.gov/img/Executive-Order-N-33-20.pdf. 5 Order of the State Public Health Officer, Mar. 19, 2020, https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ COVID-19/Health%20Order%203.19.2020.pdf. – 15 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:16 1 2 3 39. On or about March 19, 2020, Defendant Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, directing all residents “to immediately heed the current State public 4 health directives.”6 Defendant Newsom’s Executive Order included the full text of 5 Defendant Angell’s Order of the State Public Health Officer. 6 40. 7 On or about March 22, 2020, in accordance with Defendant Newsom’s 8 Executive Order N-33-20 and her own Order of the State Public Health Officer, 9 Defendant Angell designated a list of “Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers.”7 10 41. 11 12 13 14 15 Executive Order N-33-20, Los Angeles County Sheriff, and Director of Emergency Operations Alex Villanueva declared all firearms retailers in the County of Los Angles to be “non-essential.” 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 On or about March 24, 2020, in accordance with Defendant Newsom’s 42. Also on or about March 24, 2020, in accordance with Defendant Newsom’s Executive Order N-33-20, the San Diego Sheriff declared that firearm retailers “valuable public service” during the coronavirus pandemic and will be allowed to remain open. Sheriff Gore stated that licensed gun stores help maintain public safety by ensuring that buyers submit to a ten-day waiting period and pass a 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Executive Order N-33-20, Mar. 19, 2020, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.19.20-attested-EO-N-3320-COVID-19-HEALTH-ORDER.pdf. 7 Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers, Mar. 22, 2020, https://covid19.ca.gov/img/EssentialCriticalInfrastructureWorkers.pdf. – 16 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #:17 1 2 3 state license check. Sheriff Gore also warned that gun buyers could turn to the “black market” for illegal weapons if they can’t buy them legally at licensed stores.8 43. 4 5 6 7 8 Defendant Sheriff Villanueva “told FOX 11 he’s adding 1,300 deputies to patrol, doubling the current amount, and in an effort to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in jail, he has released 10% of the inmate population from county jails…” 9 9 44. On or about March 25, 2020, Sheriff Villanueva announced that the 10 11 enforcement of the closure of firearm retailers was temporarily suspended; pending 12 a decision on their classification as non-essential by Gov. Newsom.10 13 45. 14 On or about March 25, 2020, Governor Newsom issued a public 15 statement that County Sheriffs had the discretion to determine the essential nature of 16 firearms retailers in the state of California. 17 18 19 20 8 22 NBC San Diego, “Sheriff Will Not Close San Diego County Gun Stores,” https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/investigations/sheriff-will-not-close-sandiego-county-gun-stores/2292399/. 23 9 21 24 25 26 27 28 FOX 11 Los Angeles, “LA County Sheriff orders gun stores to close; adds 1,300 deputies to patrol,” https://www.foxla.com/news/la-county-sheriff-orders-gunstores-to-close-adds-1300-deputies-to-patrol. 10 NBC Los Angeles, “LA County Sheriff Reverses Decision on Closing Gun Shops,” https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/coronavirus-covid-19-losangeles-county-sheriff-gun-shops-second-amendment/2334792/. – 17 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:18 1 2 3 46. Subsequently, on March 26, 2020, Sheriff Villanueva reversed his position and stated that firearms retailers are now considered “non-essential” and 4 “must close to the general public, in compliance with the Executive Order N-33-20 5 and the County of Los Angeles Safer at Home Order for Control of COVID-19.11 6 47. 7 8 9 Sheriff Villanueva’s Order specified that licensed firearm retailers shall be permitted to sell ammunition to “security guard companies” and those who “have already lawfully purchased a firearm, possess a valid California Firearms Safety 10 11 Certificate (CFS), and simply need to take possession of their firearm. 12 13 14 48. Plaintiff Brandy purchased his first firearm on March 18, 2020. He is eligible to pick up his firearm from Oak Tree Gun Club on March 28, 2020. Under 15 Sheriff Villanueva’s current Order, Plaintiff Brandy will be able to take possession 16 of his firearm. However, Plaintiff Brandy is now unable to purchase any ammunition 17 18 19 20 21 for his firearm or able to purchase an additional firearm due to Sheriff Villanueva’s most recent Order prohibiting firearm and ammunition sales in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff Brandy does not own or possess any ammunition, and is prohibited from 22 purchasing ammunition except through a license ammunition vender under 23 California law. See California Penal Code sections 30352, 30370. Thus, Plaintiff 24 25 26 27 28 11 WTRF.com, “Déjà vu: LA County Sheriff Closes Gun Shops Again,” https://www.wtrf.com/news/national/deja-vu-la-county-sheriff-closes-gun-shopsagain/. – 18 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Brandy is prohibited from exercising his Second Amendment right to protect himself and his family. 49. Plaintiff Daemion Garr and Gun World have been forced to shutdown, reopen, and shutdown again due to the extremely vague nature of the Governor Newsom’s Executive Order and the flip-flopping nature of Sheriff Villanueva’s position on the essential nature of firearms retailers. This forced shutdown has prevented Plaintiffs Garr and Gun World from providing necessary services and 10 11 products to ensure the fundamental rights of their customers and the customers 12 safety. Plaintiff Garr and Gun World business and activities of selling firearms are 13 14 lawful and necessary for the safety and welfare of the public. Plaintiff Garr’s 15 business and activities of selling firearms to the general public are protected by the 16 United Sates Constitution, by the laws of the State of California, and authorized 17 18 19 20 21 under the State and County Orders. 50. Cities within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Order have admitted to the confusion of the Governor’s Executive Order and Sheriff 22 Villanueva’s changing positions on the essential nature of firearm retailers. The City 23 of Burbank issued the following statement on March 25, 2020 regarding gun stores: 24 25 26 27 28 There has been confusion on certain categories of essential businesses, including gun shows. The County has clarified gun shops are essential businesses under the Safer at Home Order, which aligns with the Governor’s stay at home executive order, and may remain open. Unfortunately, the Sheriff added to the confusion yesterday when he announced gun shops should be closed, but last night he reversed – 19 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:20 1 himself. The City is under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Public Health for purposes of the pandemic, and as such the City follows their orders.12 2 3 51. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Plaintiffs, as well as those similarly situated, seek to exercise their Second Amendment right to defend themselves and their families, especially in times of crisis such as this. The extremely vague nature of the Governor’s Executive Order, the County of Los Angeles Public Health Order, and Sheriff Villanueva’s Orders have only served to confuse those wishing to ensure their safety and subjected 10 11 Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to criminal liability for violation of said orders. 12 13 14 52. As to all claims made in a representative capacity herein, there are common questions of law and fact that substantially affect the rights, duties, and 15 liabilities of many similarly-situated California residents and visitors who knowingly 16 or unknowingly are subject to the California statutes, regulations, policies, practices, 17 18 19 20 21 and customs in question. The relief sought in this action is declaratory and injunctive in nature, and the action involves matters of substantial public interest. Considerations of necessity, convenience, and justice justify relief to individual and 22 institutional Plaintiffs in a representative capacity. Further, to the extent it becomes 23 necessary or appropriate, the institutional Plaintiffs are uniquely able to 24 25 communicate with and provide notice to their thousands of California members and 26 27 28 12 Burbank Police COVID-19 Updates, https://www.burbankpd.org/covid19/. – 20 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:21 1 2 3 constituents who are or would be party to any identifiable class of individuals for whose benefit this Court may grant such relief. 4 5 6 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ALLEGATIONS 53. There is an actual and present controversy between the 7 parties. Plaintiffs contend that Executive Order N-33-20, Safer at Home Order For 8 Control of COVID-19, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order, and 9 10 11 12 13 Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, infringe on Plaintiffs’ rights by prohibiting Plaintiffs and other law-abiding individuals from, inter alia, keeping, bearing, buying, selling, transferring, possessing, and/or transporting arms. Plaintiffs 14 desire a judicial declaration that Executive Order N-33-20, Safer at Home Order For 15 Control of COVID-19, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order and 16 17 Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 18 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALLEGATIONS 19 20 21 22 23 54. Plaintiffs are presently and continuously injured by Defendants’ enforcement of Executive Order N-33-20, Safer at Home Order For Control of COVID-19, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order, and 24 Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, insofar as those provisions violate 25 Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process, Second and Fourteenth Amendments by 26 27 28 prohibiting the lawful acquisition, sale, transfer, transport, use, and ownership of constitutionally protected arms. – 21 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 22 of 30 Page ID #:22 1 2 3 55. If not enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to enforce Executive Order N-33-20, Safer at Home Order For Control of COVID-19, the Los 4 Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order and Defendants’ policies, practices, 5 and customs in derogation of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and similarly 6 7 8 9 situated law-abiding people. 56. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Except for the economic damages to Retailer Plaintiffs, damages are indeterminate or 10 11 unascertainable and, in any event, would not fully redress any harm suffered by 12 Plaintiffs because they are unable to engage in constitutionally protected activity. 13 COUNT ONE DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 57. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 56 as if fully set forth herein. 58. There is an actual and present controversy between the parties. 59. Executive Order N-33-20, Safer at Home Order For Control of COVID- 19, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order and Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs prohibit law-abiding individuals from purchasing firearms and ammunition for the purpose of protecting themselves and their families (or for any other purpose). Independently and collectively, these acts stand as a bar 28 – 22 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 on firearms acquisition and ownership and amount to a categorical ban on and infringement of the right to keep and bear arms and the privileges and immunities of citizenship. 60. State and local governments do not have the power to categorically prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by law-abiding people, nor to close off the channels of access by which people lawfully obtain and transfer firearms and ammunition. 10 11 12 13 14 61. Defendants’ directives in Executive Order N-33-20, Safer at Home Order For Control of COVID-19, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order amount to a ban on purchasing and transferring firearms and 15 ammunition. As a result, those law-abiding citizens who wish to comply with state 16 laws, by submitting to, e.g., background checks, waiting period laws, in-person 17 18 19 20 21 transfers and safety tests and demonstrations, are foreclosed from acquiring firearms and ammunition legally. 62. Defendants’ policies, laws, acts, and omissions are untailored and 22 irrational, and expressly allow some goods retailers to continue operating but prevent 23 Retailer Plaintiff and others similarly situated from operating and selling their goods 24 25 26 to their customers and members of the public, including Individual Plaintiffs and Institutional Plaintiffs’ members, violating Plaintiffs’ rights. 27 28 – 23 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:24 1 2 3 63. Defendants’ policies, practices, customs and enforcement of Executive Order N-33-20, Los Angeles County Safer at Home Order For Control of COVID- 4 19, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order independently 5 stands as a ban on purchasing and transferring firearms and ammunition. 6 7 8 9 64. Individual and Retailer Plaintiffs reasonably fear that Defendants will enforce against them Executive Order N-33-20, Los Angeles County Safer at Home Order for Control of COVID-19, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Order and Defendants’ related policies, practices, and customs. 65. Institutional Plaintiffs reasonably fear that Defendants will enforce against their members, including Individual and Retailer Plaintiff and similarly situated persons, the challenged laws, policies, practices, and customs. 66. Defendants’ laws and ongoing enforcement and threats of enforcement of Executive Order N-33-20, Safer at Home Order For Control of COVID-19, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order against the Plaintiffs and/or the Plaintiffs’ members, as well as their ongoing customs, polices, and/or practices of 22 Executive Order N-33-20, Los Angeles County Safer at Home Order For Control of 23 COVID-19, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order, violate 24 25 26 27 28 the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. 67. Defendants’ laws and ongoing enforcement and threats of enforcement of Executive Order N-33-20, Safer at Home Order For Control of COVID-19, the – 24 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:25 1 2 3 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order against the Plaintiffs and/or the Plaintiffs’ members, as well as their ongoing policy or practice of Executive Order 4 N-33-20, Safer at Home Order For Control of COVID-19, the Los Angeles County 5 Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order, prevents the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ members, and 6 7 8 9 those similarly situated from exercising their rights, including the purchase, sale, and transfer of constitutionally protected arms including but not limited to firearms, ammunition, magazines, and appurtenances, thus causing injury and damage that is 10 11 actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 COUNT TWO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Due Process / Vagueness) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 68. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully set forth herein. 69. Plaintiffs are comprised of individuals, firearms retailers, and institutional entities who desire to shop, purchase, transfer and sell firearms, 20 21 22 23 24 including ammunition, magazines, and appurtenances, but are precluded from doing so — without fear of criminal prosecution — as a direct result of the unlawful, vague, and unduly overbroad laws, orders, policies, practices, customs, and enforcement 25 issued by Defendants in this case. Retailer Plaintiff, and other similarly-situated 26 retailers, should be deemed “Essential Businesses” exempted from the mandates 27 28 under the subject Orders. – 25 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:26 1 2 3 70. For example, Paragraph 13(a) of the County’s “Safer at Home” Order encompasses “Essential Businesses” including “establishments engaged in the retail 4 sale of … other household consumer products … [including] stores that sell … 5 products necessary to maintaining the safety … and essential operation of 6 7 8 9 residences.” Paragraph 13(h) includes “Essential Businesses” such as “other service providers who provide services to maintain the safety … and essential operation of properties and other Essential Businesses.” Paragraph 13(n) encompasses businesses 10 11 that “supply other Essential Businesses with the support or supplies necessary to 12 operate.” Paragraph 13(o) protects “businesses that ship … goods … to residences, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Essential Businesses[.]” 71. Retailer Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, are firearms dealers supplying retail sales and services for self-defense and law enforcement (itself an essential service). These sales include items like firearms, ammunition, accessories, appurtenances, survival gear, and other consumer products both at retail and on-line (including shipping). The services include those that are mandated by state law to 22 effect firearm transfers, such as the initiation of background checks, administration 23 and collection of personal identifying data (including fingerprints), administration of 24 25 26 waiting period laws, administration of firearm safety tests and safe handling demonstrations, all of which must be conducted in person pursuant to state law. 27 28 – 26 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:27 1 2 3 72. These same Plaintiffs fall within the above “Essential Businesses” definitions because they are establishments engaged in the retail sale of household 4 consumer products necessary for maintaining the safety of its residents, including 5 the sale or transfer of pistols, rifles, shotguns, ammunitions, accessories, and 6 7 8 9 components necessary for the defense of their home, selves, and defense of others. They are service providers who provide products such as firearms, ammunition, and servicing of same that are needed to maintain the safety and essential operation of 10 11 residences (home and personal defense) and other essential businesses. They are 12 businesses that ship goods to residences and essential businesses. 13 14 73. However, the subject Orders do not define critical terms; they 15 encompass protected and non-protected actions; they omit definitions of key terms; 16 they operate as complete bans; they do not require specific intent to commit an 17 18 19 20 21 unlawful act; and they permit and encourage arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions with too much discretion committed to law enforcement. This breadth and built-in vagueness run afoul of the due process clause because the subject Orders 22 fail to give adequate guidance to those who would be law-abiding, to advise them of 23 the nature of the offense with which they may be charged, or to guide courts in trying 24 25 26 27 28 those who are accused of violating such Orders. Plaintiffs, including retailers and consumers, cannot be required to guess at the meaning of such Orders. As a direct result, such Orders must be invalidated on their face and as applied. – 27 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:28 1 2 3 74. The subject Orders are also unconstitutionally vague and overly broad because they are worded in a standard-less way that invites arbitrary enforcement. 4 This impermissible uncertainty is illustrated when sheriffs from two different 5 counties (San Diego and Los Angeles) openly and publicly disagree on whether gun 6 7 8 9 shops/firearm retail stores (including shipping activities) are essential businesses or not. If local sheriffs cannot agree on what businesses are or are not “covered,” then it is neither reasonable nor feasible for law-abiding Plaintiffs to understand and abide 10 11 by such Orders. 12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 13 14 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: I. 16 Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs that individually and/or 17 18 19 20 A declaratory judgment that Executive Order N-33-20 and State collectively violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; II. A declaratory judgment that Local Defendants’ Safer at Home Order 21 For Control of COVID-19, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s March 26, 22 2020 Order, and Defendants’ policies practices, and customs 23 individually and/or collectively violate the Second and Fourteenth 24 Amendments; 25 26 III. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ orders, policies and practices 27 28 which amount to a prohibition on the acquisition, selling, transferring, – 28 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:29 1 and purchase of firearms and ammunition during declared states of 2 emergency violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; 3 4 IV. 5 A preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in concert or 6 participation with them who receive notice of the injunction, from 7 enforcing Executive Order N-33-20, Los Angeles County Safer at 8 9 Home Order For Control of COVID-19, the Los Angeles County 10 11 Sheriff’s March 26, 2020 Order, and Defendants’ policies, practices, 12 and customs that individually and/or collectively prohibit the purchase 13 and sale of firearms and ammunition; 14 15 V. 16 An injunction directing Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in concert or participation with them who 17 receive notice of the injunction, to cease and desist enacting or 18 19 enforcing any Order or declaration that firearm and ammunition 20 retailers are not an essential business, or, in the alternative, an 21 22 injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing their laws, policies, 23 practices, and customs that prevent individuals from buying and selling 24 arms in accordance with State and federal laws; 25 26 VI. Nominal damages against Local Defendants; 27 28 – 29 – Case 2:20-cv-02874 Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 30 of 30 Page ID #:30 1 VII. 2 Defendants as necessary to effectuate the Court’s judgment, or as the 3 Court otherwise deems just and equitable; and, 4 5 6 7 8 All other and further relief, including injunctive relief, against VIII. Attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of March 2020. 9 10 SEILER EPSTEIN LLP 11 12 13 /s/ George Lee George M. Lee 14 Attorney for Plaintiffs 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 30 –

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?