A group of Southern California businesses deemed "nonessential" under state and local shelter-in-place orders have sued, claiming the rules are unconstitutional and that they should be allowed to resume operations while complying with federal guidelines for social distancing.

Lawyers at Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles and the Dhillon Law Group in San Francisco filed suit Friday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of businesses including restaurants, a company that handles lighting effects for Hollywood, and a mobile pet groomer. The suit, which appears to be the first mass action brought in California on behalf of business challenging government public health orders, claims that the implementation of the rules meant to stem the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic has violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

"Plaintiffs aver that all businesses in the State of California are 'essential' to the health, welfare and well-being of its citizens, and that the general health outcome sought through the passage of these Orders (i.e. lowering the curve of the Wuhan Coronavirus) could be accomplished through less restrictive means," the plaintiffs lawyers wrote. 

 "These policies, as well-intentioned as they may be, have had an unlawful and disparate effect on some people and their businesses over other people and their businesses to the point where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been ripped away from law-abiding citizens and businesses," they wrote.

A representative of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who was named in his official capacity in the suit alongside Gov. Gavin Newsom, referred a request for comment to the governor's office. Representatives of the governor didn't immediately respond to messages Friday afternoon. The suit also names the State Public Health Officer Sonia Y. Angell, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, as well as local officials in Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange and Riverside Counties.

According to the lawsuit, the forced closings of business deemed nonessential during the pandemic effectively amount to a "partial" or "complete" taking in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

"Taken together, defendants' orders have caused widespread and catastrophic damage to the California economy through the government-mandated closure of not only plaintiffs' business, but millions of other 'non-essential' businesses across California," wrote the plaintiffs lawyers. "As a result, plaintiffs have faced numerous difficulties with respect to their financial obligations, have been forced to lay off significant numbers of their employees, and face a very real and a very existential threat to their collective survival and business operations."

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the state and local health orders violate the California and U.S. constitutions and an injunction barring enforcement of the orders "unless they are issued in accordance with all procedural and substantive due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution."