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)

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)
[e-mail]
SEILER EPSTEIN LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
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 –