The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)

Citation: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Parent Document: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2024-12-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10287865/the-ohio-house-llc-v-city-of-c... ↗

Full Text

2,007 chars

portions while leaving the remainder intact.’ Because ‘[t]he
unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily
defeat or affect the validity of its remaining provisions,’ the
‘normal rule’ is ‘that partial, rather than facial, invalidation
is the required course.’” (alteration in original) (citations
omitted)). And consistent with principles of federalism,
“‘[s]everability of a local ordinance is a question of state
law.’” Vivid Ent., LLC v. Fielding, 774 F.3d 566, 574 (9th
Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting City of Lakewood
v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 772 (1988)).
    California law mandates two inquiries. First, we must
consider whether the challenged law includes a severability
clause. Cal. Redev. Ass’n v. Matosantos, 267 P.3d 580, 607
(Cal. 2011). A severability clause “establishes a presumption
that the Legislature intended that the invalid . . . applications
be severed from the valid . . . ones.” Friends of the Eel River
v. N. Coast R.R. Auth., 399 P.3d 37, 76 (Cal. 2017); see also
Matosantos, 267 P.3d at 607. Though “not conclusive,” this
presumption weighs heavily in favor of severance. Santa
Barbara Sch. Dist. v. Super. Ct., 530 P.2d 605, 618 (Cal.
1975) (in bank) (quoting McCafferty v. Bd. of Supervisors,
83 Cal. Rptr. 229, 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)). And second,
we must consider whether the invalid provision is
“grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable.”
Matosantos, 267 P.3d at 607 (quoting Calfarm Ins. Co. v.
Deukmejian, 771 P.2d 1247, 1256 (Cal. 1989)). All three of
these separability criteria “must be satisfied” before an
invalid provision can be severed. McMahan v. City &
County of San Francisco, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 509, 513 (Cal Ct.
App. 2005). “Grammatical separability, also known as
mechanical separability, depends on whether the invalid
parts ‘can be removed as a whole without affecting the
wording’ or coherence of what remains.” Matosantos, 267
          THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA          53

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text