Goldstein v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

93 Cal.App.5th 736

311 Cal.Rptr.3d 308

Yisroel GOLDSTEIN et al., Petitioners,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent;

San Diego Guns, LLC, Real Party in Interest.

D081587

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed July 19, 2023

Artiano Shinoff, Daniel R. Shinoff, Sheldon Ostroff, San Diego, and Maurice A. Bumbu, for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Law Offices of Adrienne D. Cohen, Adrienne D. Cohen and Sean R. Ferron, Santa Ana, for Real Party in Interest.

IRION, J.

In this litigation arising from the April 2019 shooting at the Chabad of Poway synagogue, the plaintiffs in two consolidated lawsuits against San Diego Guns, LLC (San Diego Guns) seek a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its ruling that granted summary adjudication to San Diego Guns on plaintiffs' causes of action seeking to recover against San Diego Guns based on the doctrine of negligence per se. Plaintiffs' theory of negligence per se is that San Diego Guns violated California law in selling the 19-year-old shooter a rifle. According to plaintiffs, the shooter did not qualify for the then-existing exception that allowed a person under the age of 21 to be sold a rifle if that person possessed a "valid, unexpired hunting license." (Former Pen. Code, § 27510, subd. (b)(1).)¹

The trial court granted summary adjudication based on its conclusion that the shooter's hunting license was valid and unexpired in April 2019 even though, on its face, the license stated that it was "Valid 07/01/2019 to 06/30/2020," i.e., for a period beginning more than two months after San Diego Guns sold him the rifle. The trial court distinguished between the time period "when the license is ‘valid’ or effective for purposes of hunting," which began on July 1, 2019, and the time period when "the license is valid for purposes of sale of the weapon," which, according to the trial court, began when the license was issued in April 2019.

As we will explain, the meaning of the statute's reference to a "valid, unexpired hunting license" is ambiguous. However, in light of the Legislature's subsequent enactment of section 16685, which clarifies that "a valid and unexpired ‘hunting license’ means a hunting license ... for which the time period authorized for the taking of birds or mammals has commenced but not expired," the trial court erred in concluding that the shooter's hunting license was valid for the purpose of purchasing a firearm. We accordingly grant plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2019, 19-year-old John T. Earnest opened fire with an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle at the Chabad of Poway synagogue, killing one person and wounding others. The rifle was sold to Earnest by San Diego Guns.

As relevant here, two groups of plaintiffs (Plaintiffs), who were present at the Chabad of Poway synagogue on the day of the shooting, filed lawsuits against San Diego Guns. Plaintiffs' two lawsuits were subsequently consolidated, along with two others.² Among the causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs against San Diego Guns were claims of negligence that depended on the doctrine of negligence per se.

To understand Plaintiffs' allegations of negligence per se, some background is required. Evidence Code section 669 "codifies the common law doctrine of negligence per se" and "allows proof of a statutory violation to create a presumption of negligence in specified circumstances." ( Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 927, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 530, 102 P.3d 915.) Under that provision, "The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if: [¶] (1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; [¶] (2) The violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; [¶] (3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and [¶] (4) The person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted." ( Evid. Code, § 669, subd. (a).) The presumption may be rebutted if the defendant shows that it "did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law." (Id. , subd. (b).) " ‘[T]he doctrine of negligence per se is not a separate cause of action, but creates an evidentiary presumption that affects the standard of care in a cause of action for negligence.’ " ( Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 534, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 528.)

In April 2019, California law prohibited a licensed gun dealer, such as San Diego Guns, from selling, supplying, delivering, or giving possession or control of a firearm to any person under 21 years of age unless a specific statutory exception was applicable. (Former § 27510.) Although Earnest was 19 years old at the time, San Diego Guns sold the rifle to Earnest based on its belief that Earnest qualified for the exception set forth in former section 27510, subdivision (b)(1). Under that exception, San Diego Guns was permitted to sell, supply, deliver, or give possession or control "of a firearm that is not a handgun to a person 18 years of age or older who possesses a valid, unexpired hunting license issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife." (Id. , subd. (b)(1).) The AR-15 style rifle purchased by Earnest was indisputably "not a handgun," and thus Earnest was eligible to purchase it under the exception set forth in former section 27510, subdivision (b)(1) if he possessed a "valid, unexpired hunting license." (Ibid. )³

Earnest paid for his rifle at San Diego Guns on April 13, 2019. He then obtained a hunting license on April 15, 2019, which he presented to San Diego Guns on April 16, 2019, when he completed the required paperwork for the transaction. The hunting license consisted of a single piece of paper, which stated that it was an "ANNUAL HUNTING LICENSE [¶] Valid 07/01/2019 to 06/30/2020." After a background check and the 10-day waiting period required by law, Earnest took possession of the rifle from San Diego Guns on April 26, 2019.

Plaintiffs alleged in their operative complaints that the doctrine of negligence per se applied because San Diego Guns violated former section 27510 when it sold the rifle to Earnest. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the exception in former section 27510, subdivision (b)(1) allowing a person under 21 years of age to buy a rifle was not applicable because Earnest did not possess a "valid, unexpired hunting license" (former § 27510, subd. (b)(1) ) at the time San Diego Guns sold him the rifle.

San Diego Guns filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for summary adjudication against Plaintiffs. San Diego Guns argued that Plaintiffs would not be able to successfully rely on the doctrine of negligence per se to show a breach of duty of care because the exception set forth in former section 27510, subdivision (b)(1) permitted San Diego Guns to sell the rifle to Earnest. According to San Diego Guns, the exception applied because Earnest had a validly issued and unexpired hunting license when he purchased the rifle in April 2019. In their opposition, Plaintiffs argued that (1) the hunting license was not valid and unexpired because it stated, on its face, that it did not become valid until July 1, 2019; and (2) even if the hunting license was "valid" within the meaning of former section 27510, subdivision (b)(1) when it was issued to Earnest on April 15, 2019, San Diego Guns sold the rifle to Earnest before that date because it accepted payment from Earnest for the rifle on April 13, 2019.

In a January 10, 2023 minute order, the trial court granted summary adjudication on what it identified as the "theory of ‘negligence per se’ " pled in Plaintiffs' complaints.⁴ The trial court concluded that a hunting license "validly issued" is a "valid, unexpired hunting license" as that term is used in former section 27510, subdivision (b)(1). As the trial court explained, the face of the hunting license "states when the license is ‘valid’ or effective for purposes of hunting," but not "for purposes of sale of the weapon." The trial court ruled that San Diego Guns complied with section 27510 because Earnest's hunting license was validly issued and was not expired, even though it could not yet be used for hunting.⁵ The trial court also rejected Plaintiffs' contention that the sale of the rifle took place when Earnest paid for the gun on April 13, 2019, prior to issuance of the hunting license on April 15, 2019. Relying on the definitions of "sale" in the Commercial Code ( Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2106, subd. (1) ) and the Revenue and Taxation Code ( Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6006, subd. (a) ), the trial court ruled that "[t]he ‘sale’ here was not simply the acceptance of the money, but the transfer of the purchase," which occurred on April 26, 2019, after Earnest obtained the hunting license.

Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandate on February 14, 2023, requesting that we direct the trial court to vacate its summary adjudication ruling on the causes of action that depend on the doctrine of negligence per se. On March 16, 2023, we issued an order to show cause why the relief Plaintiffs seek should not be granted.

II.DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

"[A] ruling on a motion for summary adjudication is reviewed de novo." ( Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara (2017) 3 Cal.5th 248, 273, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 859, 397 P.3d 210.) Further, " ‘[t]he interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo.’ " ( Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651, 662, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 742, 502 P.3d 389.)

B. Interpretation of Former Section 27510, Subdivision (b)(1)

Our resolution of this writ proceeding turns on the meaning of the phrase "valid, unexpired hunting license" in former section...