Yoga Studio Latest 'Nonessential' Business Seeking to Overturn California Shelter-in-Place Orders
Matthew Becker, of Becker Law Practice in Sacramento, said he plans to file other suits on behalf of nonessential businesses, noting that about 90% of the flood of inquiries he's gotten have come from members of the cosmetology industry.
May 08, 2020 at 02:16 PM
4 minute read
The owner of a yoga studio in Pacifica is asking a federal court to declare California's coronavirus "shelter-in-place" orders unconstitutional, claiming he can no longer afford medications following the closure of his business.
The complaint for injunctive relief, filed by Becker Law Practice on Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is the latest to challenge the constitutionality of orders requiring residents to stay at home and close up nonessential businesses in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Pacifica Beach Yoga's Thomas Antoon alleges that the orders violate his First, Fourth, Fifth Eighth and 14th Amendment rights and names several state and local officials as defendants, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, who issued the orders, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.
"To put a person in a choice between risking incarceration for months or forcing one into unemployment which risks permitting one's family into eviction and homelessness and inability to afford life-saving medication; Such is an arbitrary punishment that is wholly unreasonable and indeed cruel," wrote Matthew Becker of the Becker Law Practice in Sacramento. "Never before in the history of California has an entire class of persons been subjected to this choice with an indefinite and ever-delayed period of forcing such decisions on anyone as has been forced on plaintiff."
The rules are also unusual, because "large corporations" such as Walmart, Costco and Home Depot are arbitrarily exempt, Becker contends.
The lawsuit asserts that the orders amount to a "collective seizure of the liberty of movement of the entire population of California," but also an unreasonable seizure of property.
"This designation of non-essential status means that Plaintiff's business location has essentially been seized by defendants without individualized suspicion of anything other than practicing a trade deemed by defendants to be non-essential," the complaint states.
Antoon, who claims he could institute new policies to ensure his customers comply with social distancing requirements, is seeking special and general damages for lost revenue as a result of the orders.
The suit follows similar actions on behalf of businesses deemed "nonessential" during the pandemic. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a similar case earlier this week brought by business owners in Pennsylvania. In April, Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles and the Dhillon Law Group in San Francisco also filed suit for injunctive relief on behalf of a group of Southern California businesses, including restaurants, a company that handles lighting effects for Hollywood, and a mobile pet groomer.
Becker said he plans to file other suits on behalf of nonessential businesses, noting that about 90% of the flood of inquiries he's gotten have come from members of the cosmetology industry.
"There are far too few lawyers involved in this litigation right now," he said. The lack of interest could be a lack of profitability of the suits and the need to gain a solid understanding of epidemiology and Section 1983 litigation, or actions alleging a state actor wielded the legal system to violate constitutional rights, the solo practitioner said.
When he saw what he described as large-scale violations of civil liberties, he assumed the American Civil Liberties Union would act. When they didn't, Becker, who has a background in Section 1983 litigation, said he looked in the mirror and said,"If not me, then who?"
"The goal here is to get people back to work," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBiden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
6 minute readIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250