Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0493-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LIVINGWELL MEDICAL CLINIC, INC.; Pregnancy Care Center of the North Coast, Inc.; Confidence Pregnancy Center, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kamala HARRIS, Attorney General of the State of California, in her official capacity; Karen Smith, M.D., Director of California Department of Public Health, in her official capacity; Michael Colantuono, City Attorney of Grass Valley, California, in his official capacity; Alison Barrat-Green, County Counsel of Nevada County, California, in her official capacity; Cindy Day-Wilson, City Attorney of Eureka, California, in her official capacity; Jeffrey S. Blanck, County Counsel of Humboldt County, California, in his official capacity; Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney of Salinas, California, in his official capacity; Charles J. McKee, County Counsel of Monterey County, California, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-17497
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 14, 2016 San Francisco, California
    Filed October 14, 2016
    Jennifer L. Bursch, Esquire, Attorney, .Robert H. Tyler, Esquire, Attorney, Tyler & Bursch, LLP, Murrieta, CA, Francis J. Manion, Geoffrey R. Surtees, American Center for Law and Justice, New Hope, KY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Noreen Patricia Skelly, Attorney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Kamala Hams, Karen Smith, M.D.
    Cyndy Lynn Day-Wilson, City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office, Eureka, CA, Defendant-Appellee Cindy Day-Wilson
    Mary Blair Angus, County Counsel, Eureka, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Jeffrey S. Blanck
    Katherine M. Hogan, Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, Salinas, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Christopher A. Callihan
    William M. Litt, Office of the County Counsel, County of Monterey, Salinas, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Charles J. Mckee
    Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Livingwell Medical Clinic, Inc., et al. (collectively Livingwell) appeals from the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (the FACT Act or the Act). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

1. The district court erroneously imposed a higher than appropriate standard on the ground that Livingwell’s motion for a preliminary injunction targeted a law. See Katie A., ex rel. Ludin v. Los Angeles Cty., 481 F.3d 1150, 1155 n.12 (9th Cir. 2007). And to the extent that the district court cited Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 718, 719 (9th Cir. 1997) (order), as grounds for raising Livingwell’s burden, this was erroneous. See Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644, 658 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds by Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal, Inc., 565 U.S. 606, 132 S.Ct. 1204, 182 L.Ed.2d 101 (2012).

This error, however, was harmless because the district court properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. See Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates (ÑIFLA) v. Harris, No. 16-55249, Slip op. at 5, 2016 WL 5956734 (9th. Cir. 2016).

2. The district court properly found that Livingwell cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on -the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). The Act regulates licensed clinics’ professional speech, and is subject to intermediate scrutiny, which it survives. See ÑIF-LA, Slip op. at 26-34. Because the Act survives intermediate scrutiny, any error the district court may have made when applying intermediate scrutiny is harmless. The Act’s notice that applies to unlicensed clinics survives any level of review. See id. at 34-37, 129 S.Ct. 366.

3. The district court did not improperly place a burden on Livingwell to prove that the Act did not regulate commercial speech, as Livingwell contends. Any error would also be harmless as the Act does not regulate commercial speech. See id. at 18, 129 S.Ct. 366 n.5.

4. Because we affirm the district court’s finding that Livingwell cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim, thus failing to meet the first, most important Winter factor, see Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), we need not parse their showing under the remaining Winter factors.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3,
     
      
      . We also conclude that Livingwell have not forth in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cott-raised "serious questions” going to the meritsrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011), of their claims; thus, the alternate test set does not apply.