Order Dismissing Case For Lack of Jurisdiction

Case 3:20-cv-01990-CAB-WVG Document 57 Filed 08/06/21 PageID.
531 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO Case No.: 20-CV-1990-CAB-WVG
COMPANY et al.,
12
Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
13 LACK OF JURISDICTION
v.
14
XAVIER BECERRA et al., [Doc. Nos. 6, 36, 38]
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 In this matter, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that California Senate Bill 793
19 (“S.B. 793”) is invalid and unenforceable because it is preempted by federal law and
20 violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. On the same day
21 they filed the complaint, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on enforcement of
22 S.B. 793. [Doc. No. 6.] Defendants have opposed Plaintiffs’ motion and moved to dismiss
23 the complaint for failure to state a claim. [Doc. Nos. 36, 38.] Upon review of the record,1
24 the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of S.B. 793 is not ripe for
25
26
27
1
The motions had been pending before another judge. The case was recently reassigned to the
28 undersigned.
1
20-CV-1990-CAB-WVG
Case 3:20-cv-01990-CAB-WVG Document 57 Filed 08/06/21 PageID.532 Page 2 of 3
1 resolution and that therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
2 motion for preliminary injunction is denied as moot, and this case is dismissed.
3 When the complaint was filed, S.B. 793 was set to go into effect on January 21,
4 2021. In the interim, however, the California Secretary of State certified that a referendum
5 challenging S.B. 793 has qualified to be on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 election.
6 See Doc. No. 48. The parties agree that “[t]he referendum has thus ‘suspend[ed] operation’
7 of S.B. 793 unless and until ‘it is approved by a majority of voters.’” Id. (quoting Wilde v.
8 City of Dunsmuir, 9 Cal. 5th 1105, 1111 (2020)). In light of the referendum, Plaintiffs
9 concede that their motion for a preliminary injunction is moot. [Doc. No. 43 at 3 (“[I]f the
10 referendum qualifies, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be moot. . . .”).
11 Accordingly, the motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
12 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiffs still contend that the Court retains subject
13 matter jurisdiction over their case. The Court is not persuaded. “The Article III case or
14 controversy requirement limits federal courts’ subject matter jurisdiction by requiring . . .
15 that claims be ‘ripe’ for adjudication.” Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598
16 F.3d 1115, 1121–22 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 104 S.Ct.
17 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)). “[R]ipeness is a means by which federal courts may dispose
18 of matters that are premature for review because the plaintiff's purported injury is too
19 speculative and may never occur.” Id. “If a claim is unripe, federal courts lack subject
20 matter jurisdiction and the complaint must be dismissed.” S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of
21 Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir. 1990).
22 “The central concern of the ripeness inquiry is whether the case involves uncertain
23 or contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at
24 all.” Chandler, 598 F.3d at 1122-23. Here, although S.B. 793 has been passed by the
25 California legislature and signed by the Governor, S.B. 793 will never be enforceable
26 against Plaintiffs (or anyone) if it does not survive the referendum set to go forward on
27 November 8, 2022. In other words, any purported injury to Plaintiffs caused by
28
2
20-CV-1990-CAB-WVG
Case 3:20-cv-01990-CAB-WVG Document 57 Filed 08/06/21 PageID.533 Page 3 of 3
1 enforcement of S.B. 793 is contingent on the outcome of the referendum and may not occur
2 at all.
3 Plaintiffs argue that this case is ripe because there is a “realistic danger that SB793
4 will go into effect,” citing Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 289
5 (1979). Babbitt is distinguishable. Babbitt addressed whether a plaintiff who has not been
6 subject to injury from a statute’s operation or enforcement may challenge the statute. The
7 statute in question in Babbitt, however, was already in effect, and was in fact being
8 enforced. See Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 293 (noting that the lower court had determined that the
9 case was justiciable “on the basis of past instances of enforcement of the Act and in light
10 of the imposition of criminal penalties for ‘violat[ion of] any provision of the Act.’”). The
11 issue being considered by the Court there was whether the plaintiffs had a ripe claim even
12 if they had not personally been subject to a criminal enforcement action, with the Court
13 noting that “[w]hen contesting the constitutionality of a criminal statute, ‘it is not necessary
14 that [the plaintiff] first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to
15 challenge [the] statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.’” Id.
16 at 298 (quoting Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974)). Plaintiffs face no such
17 risk of prosecution here. Unlike Babbitt, there currently is no “realistic danger” that
18 Plaintiffs will be prosecuted for violation of S.B. 793, and there will not be any such
19 realistic danger until after November 8, 2022, if at all. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are
20 unripe, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
21 In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED
22 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This case is CLOSED.
23 It is SO ORDERED.
24 Dated: August 6, 2021
25
26
27
28
3
20-CV-1990-CAB-WVG

Order Dismissing Case For Lack of Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Order Dismissing Case For Lack of Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:20-cv-01990-CAB-WVG Document 57 Filed 08/06/21 PageID.

You might also like