Judge says California county acted ‘arbitrarily’ closing outdoor dining in ruling

Still, outdoor dining can't reopen in LA County because of the state's stay-at-home order.

In a ruling issued Tuesday, Dec. 8, a judge said Los Angeles County acted “arbitrarily” and without a proper “risk-benefit” analysis when it closed all outdoor dining at restaurants to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

Still, because of the state’s overriding regional stay-at-home order, which includes an in-person dining ban, “outdoor restaurant dining in the county cannot reopen at this time,” Superior Court Judge James Chalfant said in a 53-page decision.

“By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs, the county acted arbitrarily and its decision lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate end,” Chalfant wrote in a tentative ruling, which was later upheld in a hearing Tuesday that lasted more than an hour.

The ruling comes after two lawsuits were filed against the county, one by the California Restaurant Association and another from the owner of the downtown Engine Co. No. 28 restaurant, attorney Mark Geragos.

Although Chalfant had already penned a 53-page tentative ruling and upheld it during the hearing, attorneys for the California Restaurant Association are expected to craft a shorter document that Chalfant will sign, making the order official.

“The balance of harms works in petitioners’ favor until such time as the county concludes after proper risk-benefit analysis that restaurants must be closed to protect the healthcare system,” Chalfant wrote.

The judge noted that the county has shown surging COVID-19 cases are “burdening the health care system and action is necessary.” He also said the county has presented “generalized evidence” of transmission risk from outdoor dining.

But he said the county’s assertion that the virus can be spread in restaurants by patrons spending extended periods of time without masks “only weakly supports the closure of outdoor restaurant dining, because it ignores the outdoor nature of the activity, which the CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) says carries only a moderate risk, and less with mitigations.”

While the state’s order will be in place until Dec. 27, at a minimum, the county could foreseeably extend its own outdoor dining ban set to expire on Dec. 16 beyond the state’s order — but only “after conducting an appropriate risk-benefit analysis,” the judge said.

Chalfant wrote that he can’t dictate what that analysis should entail, but suggested that the county “could be expected to consider the economic cost of closing 30,000 restaurants, the impact to restaurant owners and their employees and the psychological and emotional cost to a public tired of the pandemic and seeking some form of employment in their lives.”

The ruling comes one week after the judge asked county lawyers to produce evidence that shutting down outdoor dining would in fact stem the spread of the virus.

The move was somewhat telegraphed in court proceedings last week when attorneys for the restaurateurs said county officials lacked any data, save for theoretical evidence based on simulations, to justify the closure. The judge, they said, was looking for more.

Before the state’s stay-at-home order was enacted last week, Los Angeles and Long Beach health departments closed outdoor dining, sparking outrage from restaurant owners and some government officials who warned of financial devastation.

After such a dismal year for business, many restaurants that close may not come back, they argued, particularly because the closure order came down right before the holidays when restaurants often have their best weeks of the year.

Still, the move didn’t stop Pasadena from keeping its outdoor dining open. Although the Crown City operates its own health department, it tends to stay in line with the county’s policies; this marked Pasadena’s most significant divergence yet.

One week before the county closed outdoor dining, it limited restaurants to 50% of their outdoor capacity. Pasadena did not follow suit, arguing the rule was vague and ineffective, instead opting to increase enforcement of coronavirus-related restrictions.

It was able to do that, city officials said, because Pasadena has a few hundred restaurants while the county has over 30,000. Enforcement isn’t feasible at that scale, they argued.

City News Service contributed to this report.