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
Equal Protection/Equal Rights Under the Law

T. Venjnovic, C.L. Corona v. Kamala Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of California; Edmund G. Brown Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California

Published: Aug. 16, 2014 | Result Date: Mar. 5, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:13-cv-02474-JAM-EFB Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Facts

T. Venjnovic and C.L. Corona sued Attorney General Kamala Harris and Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., in connection with California Vehicle Code Section 23152(b).

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff C.L. had a pending criminal case. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the California Supreme Court case in "People v. Vangelder" discriminates against women, ethnic minorities, Americans over age 40, and disabled Americans by making these groups "far more likely to be charged and/or convicted" of California Vehicle Code Section 23152(b). Plaintiff contended that the section made it illegal for anyone to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Moreover, the per se statute did not allow introduction of "physiological factors" affecting the Alcohol Breath Test for alcohol concentration. Plaintiffs argued that the test discriminated against women, minorities, and disabled persons, especially those with cystic fibrosis, lung cancer, emphysema, and others. Consequently, plaintiffs argued that the disparity in treatment was unconstitutional.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on immunity grounds. Defendants also argued that the court should abstain from deciding the matter pursuant to the "Younger abstention doctrine," and that plaintiffs lacked standing.

Result

The court granted the Governor's motion to dismiss on immunity grounds. It also agreed with their abstention claim, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.


#99467

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

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