Summary
The California Court of Appeal affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded consolidated cases involving constitutional challenges to California charitable-solicitation statutes and permanent injunctions against the Attorney General. The court held that permanent injunctive relief is not automatic in First Amendment cases and that the plaintiffs had to plead and prove entitlement to such relief; it also upheld the trial court’s authority to reform and sever one statutory provision. The court vacated the injunctions and attorney-fee awards and remanded for further proceedings. On March 27, 2025, the court modified the opinion without changing the appellate judgment and denied rehearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting permanent injunctions against enforcement of statutory provisions without requiring the charities to plead and prove the traditional elements of injunctive relief.
- Whether a permanent injunction against enforcement of a facially unconstitutional statute automatically follows from a declaratory judgment of facial invalidity.
- Whether a permanent injunction may extend to enforcement against nonparties without evidence of recurring or threatened injury involving nonparties.
- Whether a court may reform and functionally sever a statutory provision after determining that part of the provision is unconstitutional.
- Whether Government Code section 12591.1(b)(4) was grammatically, functionally, and volitionally severable.
- Whether the postjudgment attorney-fee awards should stand after the injunctions were vacated and the matter remanded.
Holdings
- A permanent injunction is not issued as a matter of course merely because a statute has been declared facially unconstitutional. A plaintiff seeking permanent injunctive relief must plead and prove both the underlying cause of action and the traditional grounds for equitable relief.
- Respondents did not plead or prove entitlement to permanent injunctions. The complaints did not request injunctive relief, and the record lacked evidence of irreparable harm, inadequate legal remedies, or a likelihood of recurring or future enforcement.
- A permanent injunction requires evidence of present or future threatened injury or a reasonable probability of recurrence. The trial court could not issue a statewide injunction covering nonparties without evidence supporting such relief.
- There is no categorical rule prohibiting a court from simultaneously reforming and functionally severing a statutory provision after identifying constitutional invalidity. The trial court properly added an exception for violations of Government Code section 12599.6 and functionally severed section 12591.1(b)(4).
- The postjudgment attorney-fee awards were vacated because the injunctions were vacated and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Key quotations
“Permanent injunctions are not issued as a matter of course, even in cases implicating the First Amendment. Rather, plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction must plead and prove they are entitled to such extraordinary relief.” (3)
“An ancillary injunction should not issue as a concomitant to a declaratory judgment unless the pleading and proof demonstrate that the traditional requisites of injunctive relief have been met.” (18-19)
“That respondents proved they were entitled to declaratory relief was not enough to support a permanent injunction.” (25-26)
“The fact that a void law is on the books is not sufficient, by itself, to justify the issuance of an injunction.” (28)
“A court may, in appropriate circumstances, and consistently with the separation of powers doctrine, reform a statute to conform it to constitutional requirements in lieu of simply declaring it unconstitutional and unenforceable.” (35)
Factual background
Catholic Medical Mission Board and Food for the Poor are charitable organizations that solicit cash and in-kind donations, including pharmaceutical donations. After an investigation, the California Attorney General determined that the charities had used misleading program-efficiency ratios in solicitation materials by combining cash and in-kind donations, and issued cease-and-desist orders and civil penalties. The charities challenged the enforcement provisions and the penalties, while the trial court ultimately declared two statutory provisions unconstitutional, vacated the penalties, reformed section 12591.1(b), and entered permanent injunctions against enforcement.
Procedural history
After administrative proceedings concerning cease-and-desist orders and civil penalties, respondents filed petitions for administrative mandate and complaints for declaratory relief challenging Government Code sections 12591.1(b) and 12599.6(f)(2) under the First Amendment. The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the provisions facially unconstitutional, vacated civil penalties, later entered permanent injunctions without requiring respondents to plead or prove entitlement to that remedy, reformed section 12591.1(b), and awarded attorney fees. The Court of Appeal vacated the injunctions and fee awards, affirmed the reformation and severance, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The trial court must allow CMMB and FFP to file motions seeking leave to amend their complaints to plead for permanent injunctive relief and, if leave is warranted, determine whether they can prove entitlement to permanent injunctions, including irreparable harm and threatened future enforcement. The court must also assess whether reformation makes any statewide injunction unnecessary or moot, and reconsider entitlement to and the amount of attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.