Brandy V Villanueva (Gun Store Closure Opp To Tro by L.a.)
Brandy V Villanueva (Gun Store Closure Opp To Tro by L.a.)
1
BRANDY\OPP TO EPA
Case 2:20-cv-02874-AB-SK Document 23 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:280
1 herein, and upon such other further oral or documentary matters as may be
2 presented at the hearing (if any) on this Application.
3
4 Dated: April 3, 2020 LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC
5
6 By /s/ Paul B. Beach _
7 Paul B. Beach
Attorneys for Specially Appearing
8
Defendants County of Los Angeles,
9 Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and
10
Barbara Ferrer
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
BRANDY\OPP TO EPA
Case 2:20-cv-02874-AB-SK Document 23 Filed 04/03/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:282
1
BRANDY\OPP TO EPA
Case 2:20-cv-02874-AB-SK Document 23 Filed 04/03/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:283
1 “A” (emphasis added).) This announcement was made based on and in accordance
2 with the March 28, 2020 Advisory Memorandum issued by the United States
3 Department of Homeland Security, which identified as “essential workers” those
4 supporting the operation of firearm or ammunition product manufacturers,
5 retailers, importers, distributors and shooting ranges during the national COVID-19
6 pandemic response. (Villanueva Decl., ¶ 19.) Prior to the federal government’s
7 very recent advisement as to the essential nature of these workers, the multitude of
8 emergency orders issued by federal and state officials and agencies, including
9 Governor Newsom, had not provided any specific guidance as to whether firearms
10 retailers should be deemed to be “essential” businesses during this unprecedented
11 and constantly-evolving international emergency.
12 With Sheriff Villanueva’s March 30, 2020 public pronouncement that the
13 Sheriff’s Department’s position will align directly with that of the federal
14 government, the alleged constitutional violations for which Plaintiffs seek redress
15 are not occurring and will not occur. (Villanueva Decl., ¶¶ 19-20.) Yet, Plaintiffs’
16 Application makes no reference to the March 30th pronouncement even though it
17 irrefutably supersedes the earlier March 26th statement from Sheriff Villanueva.2
18 Because there is no actionable dispute, case or controversy concerning the
19 relief being sought by Plaintiffs in their Application, it must be denied with respect
20 to the County Defendants.
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26
27 2
Since the filing of this Application, County Defendants’ counsel have repeatedly
28 raised this issue – the absence of any case or controversy justifying any injunctive
relief – with Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Beach Decl., ¶¶ 8-10, Ex. “C”.)
2
BRANDY\OPP TO EPA
Case 2:20-cv-02874-AB-SK Document 23 Filed 04/03/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:284
3
BRANDY\OPP TO EPA
Case 2:20-cv-02874-AB-SK Document 23 Filed 04/03/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:285
4
BRANDY\OPP TO EPA
Case 2:20-cv-02874-AB-SK Document 23 Filed 04/03/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:286
5
BRANDY\OPP TO EPA
Case 2:20-cv-02874-AB-SK Document 23 Filed 04/03/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:287
1 24 (2008)). Accordingly, Judge Marshall ruled that the plaintiff had failed to
2 demonstrate that the public interest favors the injunction and denied his
3 application. (Beach Decl., Ex. “E.”)
4 With the same set of public interests of the highest importance at stake in
5 the significantly larger County of Los Angeles (with a population of over 10
6 million residents), Judge Marshall’s constitutional analysis applies even more
7 compellingly to the injunctive relief claims alleged in this action. Simply put, the
8 required balancing of interests mandates the denial of the instant Application.
9 The County Defendants also draw the Court’s attention to controlling Ninth
10 Circuit law that Plaintiffs omitted from their lengthy brief. In Teixeira v. County
11 of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit en banc thoroughly
12 examined the historical underpinnings of the Second Amendment in connection
13 to the regulation of the sales of firearms, and definitively held that “the Second
14 Amendment does not independently protect a proprietor’s right to sell firearms.”
15 Id. at 690 (emphasis added). Despite the Ninth Circuit’s recent pronouncement
16 that firearms retailers do not enjoy a constitutional right to sell firearms under the
17 Second Amendment, Plaintiffs ignore this authority and insist that their rights
18 have been infringed. Plaintiffs’ contention has no merit.
19 Finally, in the interest of judicial economy, the County Defendants hereby
20 join in and incorporate herein by the reference the constitutional arguments made
21 by the other defendants in their respective oppositions to this Application.
22 Dated: April 3, 2020 LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC
23
24 By /s/ Paul B. Beach _
25 Paul B. Beach
Attorneys for Specially Appearing
26
Defendants County of Los Angeles,
27 Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and
Barbara Ferrer
28
7
BRANDY\OPP TO EPA