Facts

In early 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency due to the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. Alongside this proclamation, a directive limiting public activities was issued. The directive included mandatory closure of certain businesses including hair salons and fitness centers. Governor Newsom issued a stay-at-home order with the exception of essential workers. After a few months, hair salons and fitness centers were allowed to reopen. A few months later, a resurgence of COVID-19 cases led to another order for hair salons and fitness centers to operate only outdoors. In December 2020, San Diego non-essential indoor businesses were ordered closed again by another stay-at-home order. In January 2021, the order was lifted and hair salons and fitness centers were permitted to reopen but only under certain conditions linked to the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. Two businesses, Tatoma Inc., a hair salon in La Jolla owned by Thomas Aucoin and So Cal Fitness Clubs, filed suit against Governor Newsom and other government officials in regards to these business closures.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs pursued three federal constitutional claims and three state law claims. First, they alleged that defendants lacked a compelling interest for depriving them of their right to pursue work and even if they did possess such an interest, the orders were not rationally related nor narrowly tailored to achieve those ends. Second, their rights were violated as defendants did not provide meaningful opportunity to respond to the orders and no mechanism for challenging it was provided. Third, their equal protection rights were violated because the orders arbitrarily treated essential and nonessential businesses differently. Finally, plaintiffs argued that the orders caused a partial, if not complete, regulatory taking of their property without compensation.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that there is no fundamental constitutional right to pursue a common calling, right to earn a living, or right to use real property to run a business to make a living. Because there are no such rights, deferential standard of whether the legislation bore a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest was the proper test, and the order met that test. Furthermore, the orders were of a nature that did not require the usual due process procedures of notice and opportunity to be heard. Also, their decision regarding, and treatment of, essential versus nonessential businesses was not arbitrary; there were reasonable facts set by the orders providing a rational basis for the classification. Last, every California federal court has held that COVID-19 health orders restricting businesses are not total or regulatory takings.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss; the federal constitutional arguments were dismissed with prejudice and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims which were dismissed without prejudice.