Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego

Summary

The California Court of Appeal modified its published opinion in an appeal involving COVID-19 restrictions on San Diego County adult entertainment businesses and restaurants, denied rehearing, and stated that the modification did not change the judgment. The underlying opinion reversed a preliminary injunction that broadly prohibited enforcement of COVID-19-related public health restrictions against restaurants and adult entertainment businesses. The court concluded that the injunction was procedurally overbroad, unsupported by the claims before the trial court, and impermissibly vague.

Holdings

1. A court may not enjoin enforcement of restaurant restrictions when those restrictions were not part of the plaintiffs' claims, requested relief, or the parties' litigation because the affected defendants lacked notice and an opportunity to be heard.
2. The Regional Stay at Home Order did not implicate the First Amendment when applied to the plaintiffs' businesses because it was a generally applicable public-health regulation directed at restaurant operations and public gatherings, not at expressive activity.
3. Because the Regional Stay at Home Order did not implicate the First Amendment, its restaurant restrictions were subject to rational basis review.
4. The Blueprint for a Safer Economy and updated restaurant guidance were valid content-neutral restrictions on expressive conduct under the O'Brien test.
5. The preliminary injunction was invalid because its authorization of enforcement of protocols that were no greater than essential to controlling COVID-19 was unreasonably vague.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court violated procedural due process by enjoining restaurant restrictions that were not challenged in the pleadings or litigated by the parties.
2. Whether the plaintiffs established a likelihood of prevailing on their First Amendment challenge to COVID-19 restrictions on live entertainment at restaurant establishments.
3. Whether the Regional Stay at Home Order implicated the First Amendment when applied to businesses offering restaurant service.
4. Whether the Blueprint for a Safer Economy and related restaurant guidance were valid content-neutral restrictions on expressive conduct under United States v. O'Brien.
5. Whether the preliminary injunction was impermissibly vague.
6. Whether the preliminary injunction should be reversed because the plaintiffs failed to show any possibility of prevailing on the merits.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded