Los Angeles County may keep its ban on the dining room out at least in early February if it so chooses, regardless of state rules, under an order issued by the 2nd District Court in California.
A panel of three judges before the Court of Appeal has suspended a ruling by a Los Angeles Supreme Court judge that would require public health officials in the province to conduct a risk-benefit analysis of the temporary ban imposed in late November to stay money. A hearing on the matter will be held on February 10.
Brett Morrow, director of communications for the public health department, said the latest legal action, filed on Dec. 18, enables the country to continue to protect residents from the spread of the coronavirus as hospitals struggle to get COVID -19 patients to accommodate unprecedented increase in disease.
“The law is on the side of protecting public health and safety, and we are grateful for the court’s ruling,” Morrow said in an email, adding that state law allows public health officials to act “urgently and quickly” during a health crisis. .
Provincial officials suspended outdoor meals on November 25 – a day before Thanksgiving – as cases of coronavirus began to tick. The California restaurant Assn. sued to stop the province’s ban, with a downtown restaurant, Engine Co. No. 28, which filed a similar case against the initial suspension, which would last three weeks and which would expire on December 16th.
But a state mandate for staying home for the Southern California region, instituted on Dec. 6, replaced the county’s decision to close the dining room outside, forcing the closure of all personal eateries in 11 counties. Still, the two groups tried to reverse LA County’s eating ban, and Supreme Court Justice James Chalfant said the province would be limited to the initial three-week period unless it provided additional analyzes.
“The province must continue indefinitely with the closure of the restaurant,” Chalfant said in the Dec. 8 decision.
Provincial officials appealed Chalfant’s decision on Dec. 17, a day after the ban on dining outside expired. But with the prevailing state mandate, there was no immediate practical effect.
However, the court order of the appeal allows the country to keep the eating ban in place for the immediate future, even if the state order is lifted – which is unlikely in the near future. On Tuesday, the home stay order was extended. It was not immediately clear whether the province would renew its ban.
Jot Condie, president and CEO of the California Restaurant Assn., Said the restrictions devastated restaurant owners and their employees, who were already struggling amid the pandemic. Outdoors has offered a lifeline to some, and restaurants have invested thousands of dollars to be able to offer it, he said.
“We have always believed that the province’s goal is to have unlimited power in this matter – to continue to illegally and arbitrarily extend their ban on outdoor meals far beyond the timeline of any home order,” Condie said in said a statement. “Their decision to appeal confirms our suspicion.”
Dennis Ellis, a lawyer for groups, said he thinks the case will ultimately depend on whether the country has to provide scientific evidence to support the ban.
“It’s about the rule of law,” Ellis said, “and whether the country should be fair to its commands.”
Mark Geragos, an attorney for Engine Co. no. 28, the LA restaurant in downtown that he owns, is also fighting the state-level ban.
The case was filed last week on behalf of the Pineapple Hill Saloon and Grill in Sherman Oaks. The owner, Angela Marsden, was seen in a viral video fighting back tears over the ban, which forced the closure of her restaurant, even though an outdoor dining room had been set up by a Hollywood team some distance away.
“The state’s health director admitted that they had no information to support the closure of the open air, and that the governor had apparently lost any moral authority because of his hypocrisy,” Geragos said, referring to Newsom’s meal past month in the French laundry.