61 Cal.App.5th 478
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In late 2020, during a COVID-19 surge that left Southern California ICU capacity critically low, Los Angeles County prohibited indoor dining and, effective November 25, 2020, temporarily banned outdoor restaurant dining while permitting takeout/delivery.
- The California Restaurant Association and Mark’s Engine Company No. 28 sued the County, arguing the outdoor-dining ban lacked scientific support and that the County failed to perform a required risk–benefit analysis; the trial court enjoined enforcement of the ban until the County conducted such an analysis.
- The County presented declarations from its health officer and medical experts describing airborne/asymptomatic transmission, increased risk from prolonged unmasked close contact (even outdoors), and imminent ICU shortages; plaintiffs offered contrary expert declarations and evidence of economic harm.
- The Court of Appeal stayed the trial court’s injunction, held the matter was not moot (risk of reimposition remained), and reviewed whether the County’s action was rationally related to public-health objectives under deferential review.
- The appellate court concluded the County’s emergency order had a rational basis, the trial court abused its discretion by requiring a nebulous risk–benefit analysis, and issued a peremptory writ directing the trial court to vacate the injunction and deny preliminary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County exceeded emergency powers / acted arbitrarily by banning outdoor dining without a risk–benefit analysis | The County closed outdoor dining without competent scientific evidence and failed to perform or publish a risk–benefit analysis | The ban was a reasonable, evidence-informed emergency measure based on airborne/asymptomatic spread and hospital capacity concerns | County action was rationally related to legitimate public-health objectives; trial court erred in requiring a specific risk–benefit study |
| Whether the Order violated substantive due process (liberty/profession) | The ban unreasonably deprived restaurateurs of their right to pursue a livelihood | Restrictions survive rational-basis review as reasonably related to controlling the pandemic | Plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of prevailing; rational-basis/Jacobson-style deference applied |
| Whether the Order violated First Amendment freedom of assembly (Mark’s) | The ban infringes patrons’ and the restaurant’s assembly rights | The ban is content-neutral, narrowly tailored to a significant government interest, and leaves alternatives | Claim was forfeited at trial; on the merits the restriction is a permissible time/place/manner regulation |
| Mootness: whether lifting the ban during appeal mooted the dispute | Plaintiffs argued the issue was moot after the County lifted the ban | County showed a reasonable expectation the restriction could be reinstated during future surges | Not moot — capable of repetition yet evading review; appellate review proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (establishes deferential review of public-health emergency measures)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (courts may enjoin public-health orders that unlawfully discriminate against religious exercise)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (per curiam decision emphasizing deference to politically accountable public-health officials)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time, place, and manner test for content-neutral assembly/speech restrictions)
- Hunt v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 984 (1999) (California standard for preliminary injunction: likelihood of success and balance of interim harms)