Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01464/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01464-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

[PROPOSED] AMENDED JUDGMENT

CASE NO. CIV-S-02-1464 LKK DAD

sf-2239623

MICHAEL M. CARLSON (Bar No. 88048) 

LORI A. SCHECHTER (Bar No. 139728) 

EUGENE ILLOVSKY (Bar No. 117892) 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: (415) 268-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 

BARRY FRIEDMAN (pro hac vice) 

New York University School of Law 

40 Washington Square South, Room 317 

New York, New York 10012-1099 

Telephone: (212) 998-6293 

Facsimile: (212) 995-4030 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OPTOMETRISTS & 

OPTICIANS, LENSCRAFTERS, INC., EYE CARE CENTERS 

OF AMERICA, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

OPTOMETRISTS & OPTICIANS, 

LENSCRAFTERS, INC., EYE CARE CENTERS 

OF AMERICA, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BILL LOCKYER, in his official capacity as 

Attorney General of the State of California, and 

CHARLENE ZETTEL, in her official capacity as 

Director of Department of Consumer Affairs, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV-S-02-1464 LKK DAD 

AMENDED JUDGMENT 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK -DAD Document 422 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

[PROPOSED] AMENDED JUDGMENT

CASE NO. CIV-S-02-1464 LKK DAD

sf-2239623

1

On December 6, 2006, the Court issued its order granting Plaintiffs’ motions for summary 

judgment as to discriminatory effect and as to non-discriminatory alternatives, and finding that 

California’s Business & Professions Code, §§ 655, 2556 and 3103 (as renumbered from section 

3130, effective January 1, 2006), and two companion regulations, 16 Cal. Code of Regs., Title 16 

§§ 1399.251 and 1514, violate the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause of the United States 

Constitution. In accordance with the Court’s order, of December 6, 2006, 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

It is hereby DECLARED that California Business & Professions Code, §§ 655, 2556 and 

3103, and two companion regulations, 16 Cal. Code of Regs., Title 16 §§ 1399.251 and 1514, are 

unconstitutional as they violate the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause of the United States 

Constitution, to the extent that individually, or taken together, they prohibit optical companies 

from offering prescription eyewear at the same location in which eye examinations are provided, 

and from advertising that eyewear and eye examinations are available in the same location. 

Defendants are hereby permanently ENJOINED and PROHIBITED from enforcing 

California Business & Professions Code, §§ 655, 2556 and 3103, and two companion regulations, 

16 Cal. Code of Regs., Title 16 §§ 1399.251 and 1514, either individually, or taken together, so as 

to prohibit optical companies from offering prescription eyewear at the same location in which 

eye examinations are provided, and from advertising that eyewear and eye examinations are 

available in the same location. 

Unaffected by this Judgment is the provision in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2556 making it 

“unlawful to duplicate or change lenses without a prescription or order from a person duly 

licensed to issue the same.” 

Dated: December 13, 2006 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK -DAD Document 422 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 2