Mesa Golfland Limited v. Ducey
2:20-cv-01616
D. Ariz.Sep 21, 2020Background:
- In response to COVID-19, Arizona Governor Ducey issued EO 2020-43 (June 29, 2020) pausing operations of "water parks" while allowing certain pools (e.g., at hotels, resorts, municipal parks) to operate under group-size limits and other conditions.
- Mesa Golfland, Ltd. (operator of Sunsplash Water Park) was required to close and filed suit (state court, removed to federal court) challenging EO 2020-43 as arbitrary under Arizona and U.S. constitutional due process and equal protection guarantees; sought TRO and preliminary injunction.
- ADHS Director Dr. Cara Christ submitted a declaration explaining public-health bases for temporarily closing water parks (crowding, exertion, difficulty wearing masks, movement between attractions), and ADHS issued EM 2020-02 and an attestation-based reopening process.
- Plaintiff argued the EO unlawfully distinguished stand-alone water parks from water parks at hotels/resorts/municipalities; Governor Ducey contended EO covered all water parks and enforcement was vested in agencies (not the Governor personally).
- The court heard the TRO application on August 28, 2020 (Plaintiff later completed an ADHS attestation but reserved objections); the court took judicial notice of submitted materials and denied the TRO.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial challenge to EO 2020-43 under rational-basis review | EO arbitrarily distinguishes stand-alone water parks from hotel/resort/municipal water parks | EO language distinguishes water parks vs. pools; measure is rationally related to public-health goals | Court found no likelihood of success on facial challenge; ADHS evidence supplies rational basis; TRO denied |
| As-applied claim and proper defendant (Eleventh Amendment / Ex Parte Young / standing) | Governor directly enforcing closures; sued him in official capacity to enjoin enforcement | EO vests enforcement authority in agencies and law enforcement, not the Governor personally; Eleventh Amendment/Young bars suit against Governor | Court held EO was quasi-legislative and enforcement delegated to agencies; as-applied claim against Governor improper; Plaintiff cannot proceed against Governor on that theory |
| Preliminary relief (Winter factors / sliding-scale approach) | Plaintiff argued serious questions on merits and irreparable harm warrant TRO | Governor argued lack of likelihood on merits and that agencies implement policy; public-health interest favors denial | Court resolved TRO by deciding first Winter factor (likelihood on merits): Plaintiff failed to show likelihood of success or serious questions; thus TRO denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for granting preliminary injunctive relief)
- Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying Winter factors)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale "serious questions" formulation)
- Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing sliding-scale approach to injunctions)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational-basis review cannot be arbitrary or irrational)
- Angelotti Chiropractic, Inc. v. Baker, 791 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying rational-basis review to public-health regulation)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (exception to Eleventh Amendment for prospective relief against state officials)
- Confed. Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation v. Locke, 176 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 1999) (governor not a proper defendant where enforcement is not his direct duty)