Modification: Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego

MIDWAY VENTURE LLC et al.,

Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants, and

Respondents,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al.,

Defendants and Appellants;

GAVIN NEWSOM, as Governor, etc.,

et al.,

Defendants, Cross-complainants,

and Appellants.

No. D078375

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2020-00038194-CU-CR-CTL)

California Courts of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District

Division One

Filed February 8, 2021

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING.

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 22, 2021 be modified as follows:

On page 32, footnote 5, the phrases "in this appeal" and "to uphold" are added to the second sentence, so that the modified sentence reads as follows:

The injunction here, however, was not limited to the prior scheme, and the adult entertainment businesses have given no indication in this appeal they seek to uphold such a limited injunction, which would have no effect on enforcement of the current Blueprint for a Safer Economy or the Regional Stay at Home Order.

On page 35, second full paragraph, the phrase "and imply that it involves 'vastly different facts and issues' " is added to the first sentence, so that the modified sentence reads as follows:

On the substance, the adult entertainment businesses do not address Arcara, except to say it is inapplicable and imply that it involves "vastly different facts and issues"---without further explanation.

On page 43, at the end of the first paragraph, the following new footnote 8 is added, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:

After we filed our opinion in this appeal, the United States Supreme Court enjoined the enforcement of some of the house of worship restrictions at issue in the South Bay district court proceedings, pending disposition of a related petition for writ of certiorari. (South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2021) __ U.S. __ [2021 WL 406258].) However, neither the Supreme Court's unsigned order nor its concurring and dissenting opinions call into question the portion of the South Bay opinion quoted in the text or our evaluation of this appeal more broadly.

There is no change in the judgment.

Respondents' petition for rehearing is denied.

HALLER, Acting P. J.