This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
42 U.S.C. Section 1983

Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School Inc., Bob Smith, Esteban Narez v. Dean Grafilo, et al.

Published: Jan. 4, 2019 | Result Date: Apr. 12, 2018 |

Case number: 2:17-cv-02217-JAM-GGH Bench Verdict –  Dismissal

Judge

John A. Mendez

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Bradley A. Benbrook
(Benbrook Law Group PC)

Keith Diggs
(Institute for Justice)

Paul Avelar
(Institute for Justice)


Defendant

P. Patty Li
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

Bob Smith owned a private vocational school called Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School Inc. In 2017, Smith and his school were forced to deny admission to a prospective student, Esteban Narez, based on state equivalency requirements. Smith, the school, and Narez brought suit against defendants including Dean Grafilo, the director of California's Department of Consumer Affairs, alleging violations of plaintiffs First Amendment rights under California's Private Post-secondary Education Act of 2009.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that their rights to free speech under the First Amendment were violated by California's Private Post-secondary Education Act. Plaintiffs argued that the Act's equivalency requirements of a high school diploma, GED, or an ability-to-benefit requirement to enroll in a horseshoeing school was an unconstitutional content-based restriction that limited the schools ability to teach its curriculum and prevented qualified students from enrolling.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants argued that requirements under the Act regulated content-neutral and non-expressive conduct. Non-expressive conduct only entitled plaintiffs to Rational Basis Review, requiring a law to be upheld if it was rationally related to any legitimate state interest.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.


#130604

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390