Opinion
CV 24-1103 PA (RAOx)
02-12-2024
L'Occitane, Inc. v. Zimmerman Reed LLP, et al.
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
The Court is in receipt of the Complaint filed by plaintiff L'Occitane, Inc. (“L'Occitane” or “Plaintiff”). The Complaint seeks declaratory judgment, in addition to other relief, that the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), California Penal Code sections 631 and 632.7 are unconstitutional content-based restrictions on speech and unconstitutional time, place and manner restrictions on speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and void for vagueness under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 provides:
(a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly: (1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if:
(A) a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United States, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or
(B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and
(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned-or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned-either by
certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.
(b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.
(c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1.
Based on the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff is required to file the Notice contemplated by Federal Procedure 5.1 with the Court and to serve that Notice on the Attorney General for the State of California. The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to file and serve a Notice as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 by no later than February 20, 2024, or, in the alternative, by that date, file with the Court an explanation as to why such a Notice is not required.
The Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2403, certifies to the Attorney General for the State of California, that Plaintiff's Complaint in this action draws into question the constitutionality of California Penal Code sections 631 and 632.7.
Should Plaintiff file and serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 Notice on the Attorney General for the State of California, Plaintiff shall, at that same time, provide the Attorney General with a copy of this Order and notify the Attorney General that the Court has issued this certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.