Exhibit D - Internet Archive

Exhibit D

Case 2:18-cv-02317-MCE-AC Document 1-4 Filed 08/24/18 of 130

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ~ 11 i;,a

~ 12 " ~ 13

~~ 14 ~...i ~~ 15 i;,a "' ,-l it-Se 16 ... 0 N t:: 17 ~-< ~ 18 "' p..

19 ~ ~ i;,a ,-l 20 .... "' 21 if]

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) ·. Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 601 Mont$omery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGillSEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmin~ton, NC 28401 Phone: 910) 713-8804 Fax: ( 10) 672-7705

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SHASTA

HARRY SHARP, et al.,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

vs.

XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Case No. 190350

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFF'S FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[CCP § 527(a)]

Date: Time: Dept. Judge:

Sept. 10, 2018 8:30 a.m. 08 Hon. Tan1araL. Wood

TO ALL PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 10, 2018, at 8:30 a.111., or as soon

thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 8 of the above-entitled court, Hon.

Tamara L. Wood presiding, plaintiffs Harry Sharp, David Ajirogi, Ryan Gilardy, Darin

Prince, Todd Feltman, David Kuehl, Terry Jahraus, The Calguns Foundation, Firearms

Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Fmmdation and the Second Amendment Foundation

("plaintiffa"), by and though fueir counsel of record, will and hereby do move the court

for an order granting and issuing a preliminary injnnction, pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil

l NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELJMlNARY INJUNGnON

CASE NO. 190350


..... >-< >-< lai1

\;; 0

il ~~ ~>-< l"i 't;j el~ 0"' "'E N§ z~ -IS, f,., 00 ~

1';;I l"i el ... lai1 00

l

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

Procedure §§ 526 and 527(a). Specifically, plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants California

Attorney General Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney Gern:ital of the State

of California, Brent Orick, in his official capacity as Acting Chief of the Department of

Justice Bureau of Firearms, Joe Dominic, in his official capacity as Chief of the

Department of Justice California Justice Information Services Division, and the

California Department of Justice (DOJ), their officers, agents, servants, employees, and

attorneys, and subdivisions, including those persons in active concert or participation

with them, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers

( collectively "Defendants") from enforcing California Penal Code sections 3 0600

(insofar as the statute would prohibit otherwise lawful transpm'tation activities), and

30605 (prohibiting possession of assault weapons), against plaintiffs, the class of

similarly-situated individuals, and for all persons who otherwise would have been entitle

to register certain firearms pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 3 0900(b )(1 ).

The motion is made on the grounds that plaintiffs have demonstmted a likelihood

of prevailing on the merits of their mandarnus, declaratory and injm1ctive relief claims,

that plaintiffs and a class of similarly-situated individuals would suffer irrepar·able injury

unless and until preliminary injunctive relief is granted, pending resolution of the case,

and that the balance of harms tips in favor of granting the plaintiffs iltji.mctive relief:

In support of this motion, plaintiffs tmd moving parties will rely upon this notice

of motion, the supporting memorandum of points and authorities, all declarations

submitted in support of the motion, and all evidentiary exhibits thereto, all matters of

which tl1e court ls requested to and may take judicial notice, the VERll'lED FIRST

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (FAC), all other complete files and judicial records of the above

entitled action, and any other such evidence and argument as the court may consider upon

the hearing of this matter.

II

II

2 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY !N,JUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10

11

~ 12 C)i

~ 13

~~ 14 ~ ... i:i::: 1. 15 ~ "' ,..::i ~

~e 16 .... 0

N~ 17

! 18 ~ r.:i 19 i:i::: ~ 20 ,..::i .... ~·

21 00.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: August 13, 2018 SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP

THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C.

Isl Raymond M DiGuiseppe Raymond M. DiGuiseppe

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners

3 . NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS' M0110N"FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) . Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & Al'PLEGA TE LLP 601 Mont~omery Street, Suite 2000· San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRJYl, P.C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 2840"1 · Phone: -(910) 713-8804 Fax: (9id) 672-7705

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners

SUPERIOR COURT OF IBE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SHASTA

12 · HARRY SHARP, et al., Case No. 190350

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


vs.



-i-

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTIIOR111ES lN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

[CCP § 527(a)]


September 10, 2018 8:30 am. 08 Hon. Tamara L. Wood

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES TN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION F€1R PRELIMINARY IN.JUNCTION -- CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ..:I r.l

~ 11 \,!)

12 ~ ~

<~ 13

~H 14 1Z "'oj

~~ 15

iil e 16· .... 0

Nt: ~< 17 r.l E-< f 18 r.q 1Z r.l

.19 ...l r:;s 20 rr:,

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I.

II.

III.

JV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY ................................................................ 1

A. THE "BULLET BUTTON ASSAULT WEAPON" REGISTRATION MANDATE ............... :, ........ 1

B. THE DOJ ESTABLISHED AND A F'UNDAMENTALLY INADEQUATE AND DEFECTNE

REGISTRATION SYSTEM-AND PROBLEMS INEVITABLY ABOUNDED .............................. 3

1. For Many, the CFARS System Was Not Accessible at All .................................. .4

2. For Many Others, the CFARS System CoLtld Not Process Photographs ................ 5 .

3. The CFARS System's "Invalid Character" Error ............... : .................................. 6

4. DOJ Technical Assistance Was Non-Existent ....................................................... 6

ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... , ........... 8

A. RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................................................................................... 8

B. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARDS ........................................................................ 8

C. PLAINTIFFS HAVE SHOWN A LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING ON THE MERITS ................... 10

1. Plaintiffs Have Shown Entitlement to Mandamus Relief. ................................. :.10

2. Defendants Closed the Registration Period Prematurely - Gov. Code § 6707 ..... 11

D. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE

HARM TO INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS AND ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS ......... 12

E. REPRESENTATIVE RELIEF IS REQUESTED .................................................................... 14

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15

-ii-MEMORANDUM OF POlNTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FORPRELJMINARY INJUNCTION·- CASE NO. 190350


l

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

j 10 IS<

~ 11 C,

12 r.:i

i ~~ 13

~ >-< po; 1;

14 IS< .,

15 --< ~ 2e

16 - 0 Nt: z<

.17 ·-IS< I-< "' 18 ii.. l"1 po; 19 IS< --< - 20 IS<

rJJ 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Alfaro v. Terhune (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 492 ........................................................................ 9, 13

Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38Cal.2d 825 ................................................................................... 12 •

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood (2005) 546 U.S. 320 ......................... , ......................................... 13

Board of Social Welfare v. County of Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 98 ..................................... 14

Buttv. State of California (1972) 4 Cal.4th 668 ......................................... , ............................... ,.9

Carlsbad Aquafarm, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 809 .............. 10

City of Dinuba v. County ofTulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th 859 ......................................................... IO

Ellena v. Department of Ins. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 198 ................... , ..................................... 10

Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347 ........................................................................................... 13

Katzberg v. Regents of Univ. of California (2002) 29 C_al.4th 300 ............................................. 10

Market Lofts Community Assn. v. 9th Street Market Lofts, LLC (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 924 .... 15

McKay Jewelers, Inc. v. Bowron (1942) 19 Cal.2d 595 ............................................................... 9

Navar Corp. v. Bureau of Collection & Investigative Servs. (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1.. ............... 9

O'Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452 ................................ , ...................... 13

People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997} 14 Cal.4th 1090 .................................... ,. ........................... 9

People ex rel. Younger v. County ofE/ Dorado (1971) 5 Cal.3d 480 ......................................... 10

Prigmore v. City of Redding (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1322 .......................................................... 9

Residents of Beverly Glen, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 117 ...................... 14

SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. (2013)217 Cal.App.4th 272 .................................... 8, 9

Smith v. Novato Unified School Dist. (2007} 150 Cal.App.4th. 1439 ......................................... 13

Startrack, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 451.. ........................................... 9

Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1342 ...................................................... 9

Tenants Assn. of Park Santa Anita v. Southers (1990) 222 Cal.App.3cl 1293 ....... : ..................... 15

White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528 ........................................................................................ 13

Wind v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2cl 276 ............................................................................. 12

-iii-MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORJTIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- CASE NO. 190350


1 Statutes

2. Cal. Civ. Code§ 3422 ..................................................... , ........................... _ .............................. 12

3 Cal. Code of Ci v. Pro § 1085 ................... , ......................................................... : ....................... 10

4 Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 12a .................................................... _ .................................................. l 1

5 Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 526 ....................................................... : ............................................... 9

6 Cal. Gov. Code § 6707 .............................................................................................................. 11

7 Cal. Pen. Code § 30515 .................................................................................... . : ... ...................... 2

8 Cal. Pen. Code§ 30600 ....................................................................................................... 11, 15

9 Cal. Pen. Code § 30605 ............................................................................................................. 15

lO Cal. Pen. Code§ 30680 ......................................................................................................... 2, 10

1l Cal. Pen. Code§ 30900(b) .............................................................................................. : .. passim

12 Cal. Pen. Code § 31115 ............................................................................................................... 2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Regulations

11 Cal. Code of Regs. § 54 7 4 ...................................................................................................... 5

·· iv-MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLA{NTIFFS'

MOTTON FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION·· CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

.7

8

9 Po< ,.;i 10 ,.;i

~ 11 c.,

12 "" ....:i i:,..

~~ 13

i:1/:l ..-l i,: t;i 14

::'.5 ~ 15 ~e

16 '""'0

N~ ~ 17 !=l en 18 i:,.. ~ i,:

"" 19

....:i '""' 20. "" 00.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is about the cruel irony of requiring people to comply with the law, and then

depriving them of the ability to do so. The ones truly affected are those who endeavored to and

desire to remain law-abiding citizens, respecting the laws of this State. The seven individual

plaintiffs in this case, the untold number of similarly situated people they represent, and the

many affected members of the institutional plaintiffs all share one crucial fact in common: They

are law-abiding gun owners who made good faith, diligent efforts to comply with the "bullet

button assault weapon" registration mandate during the open registration period, but were shut

out solely because o;f defects and malfunctions .with the online "assault weapons" registration

system under the complete control and responsibility of the California Department of Justice

(DOJ). By statute, this was only available means throL1gh which people could register such

lawfully-owned fireanns before the deadline of July 1, 2018. As a result, at 12:00 a.m. on July

1st, all plaintiffs in this case and likely thousands more across the state became subject to severe

penalties and sanctions for possession of unregistered assault weapons, "criminals," in the eyes

of the law, through no legal fault of their own.

Unless and until this Court steps in, plaintiffs, and the class of law-abiding citizens they

represent, will continu:e carrying this unduly prejudicial stigma and burden, subjecting them to

prosecution, significant penalties, and deprivation of their property rights - all because the DOJ

established and maintained a fundamentally defective system for processing these registrations

and then shut it down - prematurely- providing no exception or mercy for any of those whose

applications could not be processed due to the system's technical defects. This Court's

immediate intervention is therefore requested to prevent the unconstitutional infliction of

irreparable injury to these plaintiffs and everyone else forced into this state of legal purgatory.

II. FACTUAL ANO PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

A. THE "BULLET BUTTON ASSAULT WEAPON" REGISTRATION MANDATE

For many years now, the State of California has strictly regulated the acquisition,

possession, sale, and use of popular, commonly-held semiautomatic firearms through a vast and

complex web of criminal stitutes whose scope is ever-expanding to include more and more such

-!-MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION·- CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

j 10 I"<

~ 11 C,

12 I"< ...:i

"" <~ 13

c/:! ...:I ,::i: 'l;j

14

I"< "' 15 ,.,l ai' ~e

16 -o N~ ~ 17 I"<

'"' "' 18 "" ~ ,::i: I"<

19 ...:i - 20 I"< r.,:,

· 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

firearms designated with the legislative classification of"assault weapons." Most recently, the

Legislature declared as "assault weapons" another large swath of popular, commonly-held

. semiautomatic firearms - this time those with the so-called "bullet-button" as part of their

magazine-locking mechanism. Specifically, in 2016, through Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill

1135 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), the Legislature expanded the definition of"assault weapon" to

include many such firearms (Pen. Code § 30515) and further established a registration

requirement, forcing owners of these firearms to register them with the DOJ by no later than July

1, 2018, in order to continue lawful possession. See, Pen. Code §§ 30900(b)(l) (requiring

registration), and 30680(c) (allowing possession for those who timely register). At the same

time, the Legislature required the DOJ to establish and mainta.in a functional "public-facing"

Internet-based application for timely processing these registrations. Pen. Code § 30900(b)(2).

Hundreds of thousands of firearms likely fall within the purview of the retroactively

classified ''bullet button assault weapons" subject to the statutory registration requirement. (FAC,

133.) In the run-up to the deadline, the Attorney General's website emphasized the importance

of compliance in order to stay in line with the law, with an ominous "countdown clock" ticking

off the number of weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds to the deadline of July !, 2018.

(See, FAC Exhibit A.) But besides the "countdown clock" floating in the ether of the Internet as

a portentous reminder to those who happened to see it on the website during the registration

period, the DOJ undertook little, if any, efforts to notify or educate the general public about the

registration mandate - even though for prior "assault weapon" registration periods the DOJ had

been required to "conduct a public education and notification program regarding the registration

of assault weapons." See, Pen. Code§ 31115. PlaintiffF.PC took it upon itself to help fiJJ this

void by devoting its own resources toward public education. (FAC, 153.) Still, 1intold numbers

of affected citizens were undoubtedly left in the dark about the registration mandate throughout

most or even the entire registration period. Case in point, plaintiff Jahraus only happened to

learn ofthe·registration mandate coincidentally when he saw a television news report about it on

June 30th, the final day of the registration period. (Jahraus Deel., 16.)

-2-MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'



~ ~ " ;'.l ~

<~ qj >-< ~ 'ii >.al "' ...:i ~ Se ... 0 N 1:l z< -l"'1

~ ~ r.l

Gl ...:i ... l"'1

00.

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

B. THE DOJ_ESTABLISHED AND A FUNDAMENTALLY INADEQUATE AND .DEFECTIVE

REGISTRA TlON SYSTEM -AND PROBLEMS !NEVITAJlLY ABOUNDED,

The DOJ's registration system went "live" August 3, 2017, leaving just eleven months

for the numerous affected citizens to learn about and comply with the _registration requirement.

(FAC, 134.) The DOJ set up and maintained this online registration system through the

California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS). As plaintiffs demonstrate,

however, this system was flawed from the outset, and during the crucial final days in the run-up

to the looming statutory deadline, the system repeatedly malfunctioned, ultimately blocking the

registration attempts of the plaintiffs, and numerous other similarly situated people, as they made

good faith efforts to comply with the law by registering their firearms through this portal.

Plaintiffs retained Michael Miyabara-McCaskey, a.senior IT Systems/Enterprise

Architect, with twenty-one years of experience serving clients both in the private and public

sectors, with specific experience in building and maintaining organizational IT systems,

enterprise architecture, network, systems, and database administration, to examine the likely

causes of the inability of plaintiffs, and other. members of the pubic, to access and/or successfully

submit assault weapon registration forms to the DOJ. (Miyabara-McCaskey Deel., ~13c4.) His

job, in essence, includes "root cause analysis," which is to _diagnose and resolve enterprise IT

problems and failures, and his work specifically includes the creation, maintenance and

management of the data systems for the Judicial Council of California. (Id., ~ii 5-6.) As this

expert explains, when the DOJ created its "public-facing application," it did not create an

independent on-line registration sysfom, but rather, elected to make an "enhancement" to its

already-existing and maintained CF ARS web application which included, inter alia: firearm

registrations, ownership reports, transfer reports, serial number.applications, and other firearms~

related data. (Miyabara-McCaskey Deel.,~ 10; Exhibit B.) The design of the "enhancement" to

·the CF ARS system for using this system to also process the llumerous "bullet button assault

weapon" registrations was inherently flawed, in that it was built on an existing system which

already served several other purposes without adequate quality assurance testing or profiling so

as to ensure proper sizing (i.e., sufficient capacity) within CFARS. (Id., ii 13.)

-3-MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & Alfl'HORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY JNJUNCl'ION -- CASE NO. 190350


p., ~ ~ ea ~ C,

~ ,:,. .

~~ ~H ,z t;; ea~ ,-l ~

~s -o N~ z . -ea E--"' ~ ~ ~

~ -ea r:r,

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

The collective experience of the individual plaintiffs in attempting to access the DOJ's

CFARS servers and successfully submit firearm registration forms is illustrative of experiences

that were shared with many other members of the public across the state. (See, Lee Deel., ,r,r 6-

7, Exhibits A and B). The commonality of these types of problems supports the conclusion that

these were CF ARS-server side issues, and not the fault of the plaintiffs or the public. (Miyabara

McCaskey Deel., ,r 16.) Ultimately, plaintiffs have demonstrated that the problems being

experienced (as detailed below) were due to inadequate CFARS system resources such as

available memory, unavailability of external or third party connections that the CF ARS

application depended upon for referenced data, and/or inadequate network bandwiµth or network

routing problems within CFARS servers. (See id at ,r 18.)

1. For Many, the CFARS System Was Not Accessible at All.

Plaintiff Harry Sharp, a resident of Redding, was initially able to register one of four

firearms he intended to register on June 29, 2018. (Sharp Deel., ,r 6). However, upon attempting

to register the second firearm, the system would "time out" (i.e., become unresponsive and

eventually quit) when he attempted to upload and submit the required photographs. The next

day, June 30, 2018, Mr. Sharp res11me,l his efforts to register, but was unable to access the

CFARS portal at all. (Id, 'If 7). (A video demonstrating the inaccessibility of CFARS is

described in his declaration, at ii t 1 and found at: http://bit.ly/Sharp Yideo 001.)

Likewise, plaintiff David Ajirogi, who was initially able to establish a CFARS account

(i.e., create a basic user name and password), was unable to access the "Assault Weapon

Registration Form" Unk at all, despite multiple attempts on June 28 and 29. (Ajirogi Deel., ,r 6-

7.) Each time, the system would "time out" and become unrespimsive. (Ibid.)·

Plaintiff David Kuehl similarly describes an inability to access the CFARS system

entirely, receiving error messages about the website not being available. (Kuehl Deel., ,r 6.)

Plaintiff Darin Prince tried to register on June 30, 2018, but was unable to access the site

for four hours. (Prince Deel., ,r 6.) He was able to get onto the site eventually, but due to other .

problems, he was unable to timely register all the firearms he intended to register. (Id., 'If 8.)

As a result of the CFARS system being completely inaccessible, these individuals (and

-4-MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIBS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION --CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 i:i-. ~ 10 ~

~ 11 < c., 12 es

0.. 0.. l3 <~

O(j ,..:i 14 ~~ es ~ 15 c., " "1 E:

16 -o Ni= z<

17 -r.:i f-, .

~ 18 ~ ~ "1

19

'"' - 20 "1 Vl

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

undoubtedly many others) were unable to even begin processing their registrations, and were

therefore unable to timely register their firearms subject to the registration mandate. (Sharp

Deel., 19; Ajirogi Deel., 1 8; Kuehl Deel., 17; Prince Deel., 116-8.) These connection issues

experienced by the plaintiffs and others across the state, were caused by either the DOJ's CF ARS

servers being overloaded and/or possibly by one of the State of California datacenters itself bein

unavailable due to network routing or overload issues. (Miyabara-McCaskey Deel., 112.)

2. For Many Others, the CFARS System Could Not Process Photograpl1s.

Many of the plaintiffs declare that the CFARS system timing out while attempting to

upload the four photographs required by the DOJ.1 Plaintiff Sharp, for example, could not

complete the second registration he attempted on June 29, 2018, because the system "froze up"

when he attempted to upload the second batch of photographs. (Sharp Deel., 16.)

Plaintiff Ryan Gilardy, who actually began the registration process a month before the

Deadline by inquiring with the DOJ about the general process (Gilardy Deel., 1 6), experienced

"time outs" during his attempted submission of the photographs and documents required for joint

registration approximately two weeks before the Deadline. (Id., ,ii 8-9.) (A video demonstrating

the CF ARS system timing out after attempting to upload a simple 2.0 MB photograph is

described in the Gilardy Deel. at 112 and found at: \it!J?://bit.ly/Gilardv Video 00 I.)

Plaintiff Todd Feltman got as for as submitting the required information, and uploading

the photographs, but when he attempted to "submit" everything, the system "timed out" and

crashed. (Feltman· Deel., 1i[ 6, 9 and video at: httQJ,lbit. lv/Feltrnan Video 00 I.)

These problems uploading photographs were widespread. See Gallinger Deel. (attached

to Lee Deel. as Exhibit A) at 1 5; Deel. of Richard Whittier (Lee Deel. Exhibit B) at 15. DOJ's

1The photographic requirement was entirely an invention of the DOJ itself, by and through its own regulations. (Tit. 11 Cal. Code of Regs. § 5474(c) (requiring four "clear digital photos of firearms listed on the application.") Nowhere in the authorizing statute are photographs actually required. (See Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(3) for a list of the registration information required by statute.) Had the DOJ followed the Administrative Procedures Act, and opened its regulations to public comment before promulgating them, the predictable technical problems with its requirement of uploading four photographs could have been exposed and avoided.


MOTION FOR PRELIMlNARY INJUNCJ'ION •• CASE NO. 190350


~ ~ ~ r4

~ c.:, r4 s; ~ ~-

oij ~ i,::~

::l t' c.:, = r4 ... -o ~~ -r4 f-< "' :i " r4 ..,;i -r4 rn

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

JD

' 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

inability to accommodate its own photographic requirement foreclosed many from timely

registering their firearms. (See, Sharp Deel., 19; Gilardy Deel., 1 11; Feltman Deel., 1 10.)

3. The CFARS System's "Invalid Character" Error

Others were unable to proceed and/or submit their registration forms due to a bizarre

"invalid character address" error they received, preventing their submission. For example,

plaintiff Darin Prince, who had already submitted seven of his firearms, experienced this error at

11: 15 p.m. on June 30th after the system kicked him out, deleting his submission and requiring

him to start all over again. (Prince Deel., 1 6.) When he did log in again, the CFARS system

would not accept the exact same home address he had used previously, responding that there

were "invalid characters" in the address field. (Ibid.) He naturally attempted every possible

combination of letters and variations, to no avail.· (Ibid.) To cut his losses, plaintiff Prince

checked 0111 and paid for those submissions already in his cart, but was unable to process seven

of his firearms prior to the Deadline due to this error. (Jd., 1 8.) He forwarded to the DOJ a

screenshot of the error message he had received. (Exhibit A to Prince Deel.)

Similarly, plaintiff Terry Jahraus attempted to register his firearm with CFARS, only to

receive the "invalid characters" error message that prevented him from proceeding. (Jahraus

Deel., 16.) He attempted every possible variation of his home address, to no avail. (Id.)

(Exhibit A to Jahraus Deel. (Picture of the error message).) Declarant Jordan Gallinger likewise

experienced this error in attempting to use the registration system. (Lee Deel., Exhibit A at 1 5.)

This error prevented these individuals from registering some or all the firearms they

intended to register before the Deadline (Prince Deel., 1 8; Jahraus Deel., 1 7), fui:ther illustrating

the inadequate memo1y/resources of the system. (Miyabara-McCaskey Deel., 14).

4. DOJ Technical Assistance Was Non-Existent.

The technical issues that plaintiffs and undoubtedly many others experienced in the crush

of attempted registrations might have been mitigated, had the DOJ actually provided technical

support to address its problems. The DOJ knew there were issues. For example, before the

Deadline, the DOJ posted a warning on its website, stating, "[t]he Department is currently

experiencing a high volume of users attempting to register their assault weapons." (Lee Deel.,




~ ~ ~

~ G ~ t <~ c/d ,.;; i:i:: "t;; ~"' ,.;; ~.

<:.:le es o N :t: i:5 < ~ "' p.. fa;l i:i:: ~ -~

00

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

JO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exhibit E.)2 The DOJ claimed that "staff will be available to assist with bullet button assault

weapon registrations and assault weapon serial number requests via email communication on

Saturday, June 30, 2018 until 1 J :59:59 pm by contacting [email protected]." (Ibid)

But this was all folly, and possibly just for show. Plaintiff Sharp, for example, followed

, the "troubleshooting tips," to no avail. (Sharp Deel., 1 8.) .For his part, plaintiff Ryan Gilardy

had actually contacted the DOJ by phone a full month before the deadline and addressed to a

DOJ official questions about how to properly utilize the registration system. The DOJ official

said they expected a large number of online registration attempts throughout the month of June

and that registrants would face "time outs" due to the high traffic volume. (Gilardy Deel., 1 6.)

Nevertheless, she advised if that happened to him, he should "keep trying" and that eventually,

he would get through. (Ibid) And when plairrtiff Gilardy did experience such problems, as a

former IT professional, he did everything the DOJ recommended and more to try to solve them.

For example, he made sure he was using up-to-date computer systems and fully-updated web

browsers. He used different devices, Internet service providers arrd networks, to no avail. He

performed Internet speed tests to verify that his connections were strong. He attempted to reduce

the photograph data size to make sure that file size wasn't the issue. (Id,~ 9.) Notwithstanding

these efforts, he was unable to complete the registration process for all of the firearms. The one

successful registration he made came only after 14 attempts. The.other. two never went through,

due to the system "time outs." (Id., 110.) When he attempted to call the DOJ for help, there was

no response. (See Gilardy Deel., 1 12 and video at. httR://bit.lv/Gilarclv Video 002.)

Likewise, plaintiff Todd Feltman followed the DOJ "troubleshooting tips," using

different browsers, devices, and Internet connections, and clearing out web caches and cookies,

after he experienced timeouts blocking his attempted registrations. (Feltman Deel.,~ 7.) And he

attempted to contact the DOJ for assistance, but no one ever responded to his inquiry. (Ibid)

2Tltls same advisory also provided "Troubleshooting Tips", including an .advisory to "clear your browser history. [ ... ] Be sure to clear your Cache, Cookies and Form & Search History[,]" and to try using different web browsers or computers networks. (Ibid.) However, given that these errors were server-side errors, following these tips was futile. (Miyabara-McCaskey Deel., 117.)


MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC'TION -- CASE NO. 190350


1 In fact, almost all the plaintiffs attempted to contact the DOJ for assistancff before the

2 Deadline, but the DOJ never respo1:1ded to them, at all. (Sharp Deel., ,r 8; Ajirogi Deel., 4[ 7;

3 Gilardy Deel., ,r 12; Prince Deel., ,r 6 and Exhibit A; Feltman Deel., ,r 7.) Some were able to get

4 through the following Monday, July 2. However, the DOJ officials they reached by phone

5 uniformly told plaintiffs (and undoubtedly m·any others) that it was their own fault for having

6 failed to attempt registration earlier. (See, Sharp Deel., ,r 10; Jahraus Deel., ,r 8.) In fact, the

7 DOJ official speaking with plaintiff Jahraus blamed him, saying it had been his responsibility to

8 comply with the law and he "had all year to do so." (Jahraus Deel., ,r 8.)

9

10

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ill, ARGUMENT

A. RELIEF REQUESTED

Ultimately, plaintiffs seek mandamus, declaratory and injunctive reliefas necessary,

proper and the only remedies to permit them a reasonable opportunity to register their firearms

through a functioning registration system. Today, plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to

protect them against the severe penalties and the loss of substantial liberty and property rights to

which they are now subject pending the outcome of this action, for merely continuing possession

o:fthe "assault weapons" they attempted to register but could not. The specific. statutes plaintiffs

seek to enjoin, as applied to them, and the class they represent, are Penal Code §§ 30600 (as it

pertains to lawful transportation) and 30605 (prohibiting possession of assault weapons).

B. PRELIMINARY IN.JUNCTION STANDARDS

"The general purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a

determination on the merits of the action." SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. (2013) 217

Cal.App.4th 272,280. "'The granting or denial ofa preliminary injunction does not amount to an

adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. It merely determines that the court, balancing

the respective equities of the parties, concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant

should or ... should not be restrained from exercising the right claimed by him."' Ibid. A trial

court must weigh two interrelated factors here: "(l) the likelihoo_d that the plaintiff will prevail

on the merits at tria~ and (2) the relative _interim.hann to the parties from the issuance or

-8-MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES 1N SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -CASE NO. 190350


j ~ " !Sa .. ~

~~ ~'"' i,: 1. !Sa "' .. ~ f£ E .... 0

~~ -!Sa ,... "' ~ ~ i,: !Sa .. -!Sa

IJ1

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

nonissuance of the injunction, that is, the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the

injunction is denied as compared to the harm the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary

injunction is issued." Ibid.; People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th l 090, 1109.

Regarding the first factor, the plaintiff must show "a reasonable probability Jt will prevail on the

merits." Prigmore v. City of Redding (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1333. "The latter factor

involves con~ideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of

irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the slams quo." Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri

(2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1350. Moreover, "'the greater the plaintiffs showing on one, the

less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.'" SB Liberty, LLC, at 280 (quoting

Butt v. State of California (1972) 4 Cal.4th 668,678); Luri, 208 Cal.App.4th at 1350. "Further,

if the party se_eking the injunction can make a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of

success on the merits, the trial court has discretion to issue the injtmction notwiihstanding that

party's inability to show that the balance of harms tips in his [or her] favor." Luri, at 1350-1351.

While it is generally true that "[a]n injunction cannot be granted ... [t]o prevent the

execution of a public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit[,]" CCP § 526(b)(4),

"[t]he rule against enjoining the execution of a public statute is subject to four judicially

recognized exceptions: (l) where the statute is unconstitutional and there is a showing of

irreparable injufY; (2) where the statute is valid but is enforced in an unconstitutional manner; (3)

where the statute is valid but, as construed, does not apply to the plaintiff; and ( 4) where the

public official's action exceeds his or her authority." Alfaro v. Terhune (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th

492, 501. Therefore, injunctive relief may be granted against illegal enforcement of an otherwise

valid statute, as "[i]t is well settled that where the enforcement of a statute may cause irreparable

injurY, the injured paiiy may seek to enjoin its enforcement." Navar Corp. v. Bureau of

Collection & Investigative Servs. (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d I, 6 (citing McKay Jewelers, Inc. v.

Bowron (1942) 19 Cal.2d 595, 599); see also, Star/rack, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1976) 65

Cal.App.3d 451,457 (upholding injunction where sheriffs threatened enforcement of underlying

ordinances was "both mistaken and illegal.")

-9-MEMORANDlJM OF POINTS & AUTHOR111ES TN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION !'OR PREL !MINAR Y INJUNCTION -- CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 ~

j . 10 ;oil

~ 11 0

12 ;:j "" "" <~ 13

~ I-< i:,:~

14 ;oil .,

15 ,-1 ~ 0 .. ;oil ...

16 .... 0

N~ ~ 17 ;oil f-< <Zl 18 fl.. f.al i:,: 19 I"< ,-1 .... 20 I"< r:r,

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. PLA1NTIFFS HA VE SHOWN A LIKELIHOOD OF PREY AILING ON THE MERITS.

1. Plaintiffs Have Shown Entitlement to Mandamus Relief.

A petition for a writ of mandate under CCP § 1085 is the proper vehicle to address an

· individual's claim of the loss of due process, and to compel~ state agency to provide the same.

Katzberg v. Regents of Univ. of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 326 ( citing Carlsbad

Aquafarm, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 809, 821). A court may

issue a writ of mandate to compel a public agency or officer to perform a mandatory duty.

Ellenav. Department of Ins. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 198,205 (citing CCP § 1085; City of

Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th 859, 868). "Two basic requirements are essential

to the issuance of the writ: (1) A clear, present and usuaUy ministerial duty upon the part of the

respondent [citations]; and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the

performance of that duty [citation]. [Citation.]" Ellena, at p. 205 (citing People ex rel. Younger v.

County of El Dorado ( 1971) 5 Cal.3d 48 0, 491 ).

In the present case, defendants Lmquestionably had a statutorily"imposed duty to establish

and maintain a stable and reliable electronic registration system throughout the entire registration

period. Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(2) (''Registrations shall be submitted electronically via the

Internet utilizing a public"facing application made available by the department") and (b)(5)

("The department shall adopt reg_ulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision.") It

is also obvious that plaintiffs, and many others similarly situated, had a beneficial interest in

complying with the law. See, Pen. Code§ 30680(c) (providing an exception to the assault

weapon possession statute for those who timely register in accordance with. section 30900(b)(l)).

As shown through the supporting declarations and summarized facts above, defendants

have failed and refused to carry out this duty by establishing and maintaining a defective

registration system incapable of properly and timely processing the registration applications, by

failing or refusing to rectify the technical problems for which it was responsible, and by then

failing or refusing to make any exception or accommodation for any of the individuals whose

registrations were not timely processed solely due to the system's defects.


MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTfON -- CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 ~ ~ 10 ~

~ 11 C,

12 i ~.~ 13

~H 14 >< t, "" "' 15 ...:, ii,> C, = "" ... 16 -o

~~ 17 -"" E-<

f 18 J:ai.l

~ 19

'"' 20 "" 00

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The right and ability of plaintiffs and all those similarly situated, stemming from their ·

reasonable expectations that the/ could maintain lawful possession of their firearms by

registering them with the DOJ' s system at any time before the Deadline, implicates their

fundamental constitutional interests because the federal and state constitutions protect them

against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. Const., 14th

Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7. Their inability to register their firearms in accordance with the

law, through no fault of their own, and the resulting exposure to criminal sanctions and loss of

property interests, jeopardizes these fundamental rights, unless and until this Court intervenes.

Thus, the only viable remedy to protect these citizens against an unjust deprivation of

rights is an injunction prohibiting enforcement against them of the laws that would otherwise

penalize possession and transportation of registerable firearms (Pen. Code §§ 30600, 30605),

until such time as they have been afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to register the

firearms through a functional registration system. As such, plaintiffs have demonstrated a

likelihood of success on the merits of their mandamus claims so as to warrant the issuance of the

temporary injunction essential to providing immediate relief and preserving the status quo.

2. Defendants Closed the Registration Period Prematurely - Gov. Code§ 6707.

Furthermore, plaintiffs have shown that they will prevail at trial on the n1erits of their

claims for the simple, Y.et cmcial reason that the DOJ closed the registration period early.

Government Code § 6707 provides: "When the last day for filing any instmment or document

with a state agency falls upon a Saturday or holiday, such act may be performed upon the next

business day with the same effect as if it had been performed on the day appointed." Additional

provisions of law provide for such extensions when .an act must be done within a specified period

of time. See, e.g., CCP § 12a, subd. (a) ("If the last day for the performance of any act provided

or required by law to be performed within a specified period of time is a holiday, then that period

is hereby extended to and including the next day that is not a holiday.") Here, by operation of

statute, people having "bullet button assault weapons" were required to register said firearms

"before July 1, 2018 .... " (Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(l) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the statute

set forth a defined time within which citizens were required to submit registration information to

- I! -MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10

5 11 0

l2 ;j ll< ll< ~~

13

~ ... ~~

14

.ii " 15 ~ t~ ~e

16 ... " N~ z 17 ... .ii f-, rr, 18 ll<

i;.;;i ~ .ii

19 ...:i ... 20 .ii

rr., 2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a state agency, and the last day to submit the registration form electronically was June 30, 2018,

which the Court is requested to take judicial notice, fell on a Saturday. (Lee Deel., ,r 8.)

However, is indisputable that the DOJ shut down its CF ARS assault weapons registration

page at or about midnight on July 1, 2018. (Lee Deel., ,r 8, Exhibit E ("REMINDER: ASSAULT

WEAPON REGISTRATION ENDS AT!l:59:59P.M. ON JUNE 30, 2018. ['II] All

· applications for assault weapon registration must be submitted by this deadline."). Thus, the

DOJ effectively closed the registration window early - by two days - because it should have

remained open through Monday, July 2. By itself, the DOJ's failure or refusal to keep the

registration period open through July 2nd entitles plaintiffs, and everyone else statewide who

was deprived of the opportunity to register because of this premature registration closure, to a

reopening of the registration window for at least the same amount it was unduly cut short- i.e.,

two days.3 Plaintiffs are surely entitled to preliminary injunctive relief prev.enting enforcement

of the assault weapons possession laws when the State failed to keep tl1e registration window

open for the period it was legally required to provide.

D. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE HARM TO lNDIVlDUAL PLAINTIFFS AND ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS,

The irreparable harm in the absence of the requested temporary injunction is palpable

given the real risk of irreversible injury to or complete loss of the fundamental rights at stake.

"[B]y definition, an iltjunction properly issues in any case where 'it would be extremely difficult

to ascertain the amount of compensation which ·would afford adequate relief" or "[ w ]here

pecuniary compensation would not afford adeq1;ate relief." Windv. Herbert (1960) 186

Cal.App.2d 276, 285, quoting Civ. Code§ 3422. '"The term 'irreparable injury' ... means that

.species of damages, whether great or small, that ought not to be submitted to on the one hand or

·inflicted on the other."' Ibid. (quoting Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 Cal.2d 825,834). "'The

3Additionally, or alternatively, as plaintiffs have contended in seeking a narrower form ofrelief, this Court could grant such relief to ilie narrower class of individuals who were precluded from registering specifically because of the defects in the registration system, by enjoining operation afthese laws as to plaintiffs and all those sim,ilarly-situated for so long as necessary to permit a reasonable opportunity for them to register through a functional registration system.

-12-MEMORANDUM or POINTS & AUTHORITIBS [N SUPPORT OF PLAlNTlFPS'

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- CASE NO. 190350.


j ~ c., l"l .;j P-< P-< ~~ ~~ i:,: t. l"l ., .;j i'i' ~e -o

~~ -!'a

'" "' P-< r;.;i ~

~ -l"l r,,

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

ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is

to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause."' 0 'Connell v. Superior

Court(2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1458 (quoting White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528,554).

In this context, a deprivation of fundamental rights for even minimal periods of time constitutes

such an irreparable injury. See, Smith v. Novato Unified School Dist. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th.

1439, 1465 (quoting Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ("The loss of First Amendment

freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.")).

From the rtsk of seizure and destruction of their otherwise lawfully possessed firearms to the risk

of stigma as criminals and incarceration for possessing unregistered firearms, plaintiffs and all

those similarly situated have suffered and will.continue to suffer harm beyond compensable

measure and which can only be meaningfully remediated by immediate injunctive relief.

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs has established that he would face potentially grave and

irreparable injury resulting in unjust deprivation ofliberty and property, and potentially severe

criminal liabilities, due to no fault of their own, but solely due to the failure of the DOJ to allow

them a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law.

In balancing the harm that the plaintiffs will suffer should the temporary injunction be.

denied against whatever inconvenience defendants may be req11ired to tolerate should the

injunction be granted, the relative equities weigh heavily in favor of granting it. Indeed, there

could be no legitimate interest in enforcing the criminal statutes at issue against innocent law

abiding citizens like plaintiffs who made earnest efforts to comply with the law by properly and

timely registering their firearms only to be shut out solely because of technical problems with a

.registration system totally beyond their control. Plaintiffs seek only to prohibit application· of

these laws in this specific context, where the application would be unconstitutional, and the Statt,

could have no legitimate interest in pursuing any such enforcement actions. Ayotte v. Planned

Parenthood (2005) 546 U.S. 320,331 ("So long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then ...

the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute's

unconstitutional application"); Alfaro v. Terhune, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at 501 (an injunction is

·al)propriate to prevent the execution of a public statute by public officers, even if the statute is


MOTION FOR PRELltvllNARY INJUNCTION·· CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

.9 11.. j 10

~ 11 (.!I

12 '.j i:o..

~~ 13

~H 14 ~ 1o "" "' 15 ,.J 6,' (.!I= "" ,_, 16 ..... 0 N;: z< 17 8 00 18 i:o..

Ja;l

el 19 ,.J - 20 "" rJ.l

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

otherwise valid, where the statute would be "enforced in an unconstitutional manner"). And

while the injunctive relief plaintiffs require is immediate, they seek such relief for only so long

· as this Court determines as necessary to permit them a reasonable opportunity to register their

firearms through a functional registration in accordance with the mandates of the law.

E, REPRESENTATIVE RELIEF IS REQUESTED.

As alleged in the operative complaint, injunctive relief is sought to prevent enforcement

of the assault weapons possession statutes, notjus(as to plaintiffs themselves, or as to the

institutional members, bu( also as to the class of similarly-situated individuals they represent.

(FAC, ,r,r 22-24.) Specifically, such a class would consist of: all California citizens who are not

otherwise prohibited or exempt under the assault weapon registration laws; who lawfully and

legally possessed firearms that the State of California classified as "assault weapons" under

Penal Code§ 30515(a) and must be registered as such pursuant to Penal Code sections 30680

and 30900(b ), but who were precluded from doing so due to the Defendants' actions and failures,

including but not limited to the inaccessibility, defects, and/or non-functionality of the DOJ's

CFARS-based registration system during the registration period ending at midnight on June 30,

2018. (FAC, mJ 22-23; Lee Deel., ,r 9.)

Generally, the Jaw permits plaintiffs to bring actions in a representative capacity, "based

upon the equitable doctrine of virtual representation which 'rests upon considerations of

necessity and paramount convenience, and[ ... ] to prevent a failure of justice."' Re,·idents of

Beverly Glen, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 117, 124 (plaintiffs had standing

to· bring representative ciaim to challenge constitutionality of an ordinance). A primary

consideration in such cases is "the public nature .of the question involved." Id. at 127. This is

particularly true in mandamus actions, like the present case, "[ w ]here the question is one of

public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement ofa pL1blic duty ... "

Ibid. In such cases, it is sufficient that [the aggrieved party] is interested as a citizen in having

the laws executed and the duty in question enforced ... '" Ibid. (citing Board of Social Welfare v.

Counry of Los Angeles ( 1945) 27 Cal.2d 98, 100-,l O l ). Generally, considerations of necessity,

co·ovenience and justice justify the use of the representative procedural device. Tenants Assn. of

-14-MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPP.ORT OF PLAINTIFFS'



~ ~ " ::l €:: ~·~ o/:! ,-l p,:"';l I"! "' .... iu' ~ E: - 0 N :t: z -,:j -I"! in ~ p,: I"! .... -I"! 00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

l7

18

19

20

21

Park Santa Anita v. Southers (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1293, 1304. The two basic requirements

that must be satisfied for a representative action are an ascertainable class and a well-defined

community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties. Market

Lofts Community Assn. v. 9th Street Market Lofts, [,,LC (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 924, 933.

Here, common questions of fact affect the rights, duties and liabilities of plaintiffs and th

many similarly-situated people unable to comply with the registration requirement due to

technical issues with the system and/or simply because the DOJ shut down the registration

system early. Moreover, a well-defined and common community of interest exists among the

plaintiffs and the represented class concerning the questions of law and fact affecting their

interests, given that the effect of their inability to register through no fault of their own has left

them all exposed to severe criminal sanctions, loss of liberty interests, and deprivation of

substantial property rights. And this case SW'ely presents a matter of substantial public

importance, as to whether innocent, law-abiding citizens should face such unduly prejudicial

ramifications when they attempted to but were deprived of their ability to comply with the law.

N. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs respectfully request preliminary injunctive relief enjoiq_ing defendants from

enforcing as to plaintiffs, and the class of individuals they represent, the prohibitions against

possession and transportation in Penal Code §§ 30600 and 30605, throughout the pendency of

this case, or until they have had a reasonable opportunity, as determined by the Court, to register

the qualifying firearms through a functional registration system.

22 Dated: August 13, 20 LS

23

SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP

24

25

26

27

28

THE DIGUISRPPE LAW FIRM, P.C.

Isl Raymond M DiGuiseppe Raymond M. DiGuiseppe Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners

-15-MEMORANDUM OF PDrNTS & AUTHORlTlliS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'



I

2

3

4

5

. 6

7

8

9

~ 10 ..:! ..:! 11

~ 12

~ 13 I>.,

~~ 14 o(l >-< ~~ 15 ~ ~. (:) = 16

~i 17 ;?:i -<r:

~ 18 00. I>.,

19 ~ ~

~ 20 ii!

21 00.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) · Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco; CA 94111 Phone: (415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM,P.C . 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 Fax: (910) 672-7705

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners



Petitioners,

vs.

XAVIER BECERRA, et al.,

Respondents.


Case No. 190350

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER HARRY SHARP IN SUPPORT OJI PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

[CCP § 527]


Sept. 10, 2018 8:30 a.m. 08 I-Ion. Tamara L. Wood

DECLARATION OF HARRY SHARP

I, Han'Y Shai1J, declme as follows:

1. I am a11 adult resident of the Redding, California, a11d I am a nrnned

plaintiff/petitioner in this matter. I have personal lmowledge of the facts stated in this

declrn·ation, and if called as a witness, could competently testify tl1ereto.

2. This declrn·ation is executed in support of plaintiffs' motion for the issuance of a

preliminary injunction, made pursuant to Code ofCiv. Pro. § 527, whereby we are seekiug an 1

DECL. OF HARRY SHARP TN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR. PRELIM. INJUNC110N CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10

H 11

~ 12 C!I

~. 13

~~ 14 ~ ,-1

1Z 1. 15 ~~ c, e 16 ~Q

17 ~~ ~ jg i:...

19 ~ 1Z >'< 20 i:::l ~ 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

injunction prohibiting the temporary and preliminary enforcement of the assault weapon

possession statute, Pen. Code§ 30605, as well as the "transp9rtation" provision of the assault

weapon transportation statute f91md in Pen. Code§ 30605, pendiµg the outcome of this

litigation. The relief I and my fellow plaintiffs/petitioners are seeking would be as applied to

myself and my fellow plaintiffs/petitioners, as well as an identifiable class of persons who

attempted to register "bullet button assault weapons" unsuccessfully due to the faillU'e of the

California Department of Justice's registration system.

3. I was born and raised in California, and I have been a lifelong resident of this

state. I am a law-abiding individual, and I am not prohibited from owning firearms.

4. I am clU'rently retired from my prior employment as an emergency medical

technician (EMT) in Solano CoU11ty, due to a work-related injury, since 1994. I received my

training ara California Firefighter Academy, I have been a resident of Redding, California since

1996. I am also a lifelong shooter, hunter and conservationist. I was tlie local (Redding) chapter

president of Safari Club International, a national conservationistfhtmters' organization. I have

held a license to cany a concealed weapon (CCW), issued by my local sheriff:: for approx. 30

years.

5. Prior to January 1, 2017, I lawfully acquired and possessed four firearms,

equipped with bullet-button devices, which the Legislature in 2016 defined as "assault weapons"

in that they do not have "fixed magazines" as that term was revised in Pen. Code § 30515. (See

First Amended Complaint ("PAC") fl 33-34.) It was and remains my intention to register these

firearms in accordance with Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(l). I acquired.these firearms primal'ily

because these were collectors' items.

6. With the assistance of a friend, approximately two weeks before the statutory

registration deadline of July I, 2018 ("Deadline"), created a user account with tl1e California

Department of Justice's CFARS system, with the intention of attempting to register all four

bullet-button .firearms. On Friday, June 29, 2018, I was able to log onto my CFARS account,

and with some repeated efforts, I was able to submit a registration form (and all required

2 DECL. OF HARRY SHARP IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

. 11

12

13

14

information and photographs) for one of the four firearms I intended to register that day.

Immediately after submitting the registration form for this first firearm, however, I began to

experience problems with the remaining three submissions. Specifipally, after I attached the

required photographs for the other three firearms, and attempted to submit them, the DOJ' s

system "froze np," and failed. Due to this issue, I was unable to complete these three

applications on that day.

7. I tried again the following day, on June 30, 2018. On that day, I made repeated,

multiple attempts (at least 50) to use the DOJ's system, to no avail. Each time I attempted to get

on, the system, it would "freeze up" and it would not be accessible at all.

8 • I made at least four attempts to obtain help or technical support from the DOJ by

sending an email request by clicking the "help" button ( or something similar) on the CF ARS

website on that day. Each message was met with an automated, "canned" auto"responder

message stating that I should resubmit the forms after clearing out my web browsers and deleting

"cookies." However, I could not reach a live person at the time. I nevertheless followed these

automated instructions, and continued attempting to register tl1e remaining firearms, even into

· the next day, July 1, 2018, but all to no avail. 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

9. Notwithstanding these repeated· and extensive efforts to complete the registration

process, I was only able to submit one of the fotu, registrations I had prepared, on June 29. As a

result of the DOJ system's faihire to upload/accept my submissions, I was unable to register

three of the four fn·earms that I intended to register prior to the Deadline.

10. I was finally able to reach someone at the DOJ by phone ·on Monday, July 2,

2018. I told her about the problems I had attempting to register, and I requested an extension of

the deadline (to that day, even). She refosed, telling me in essence that it was my responsibility

to have complied with the registration requirement by the Deadline, and that they would not be

providing any extensions.

11. A true and correct video I took, documenting my attempts to register after

28 spending many hours doing so on June 30, '.WIS, with the CFARS "timeout" preventing me from

even accessing the web page, may be found at: http://bit.ly/Sharp Video 001. 3

DECL. OF HARRY SHARP IN Sill'PORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PREL!M. INJUNCI10N CASENO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

es [0 ,.,;i

11 ~ < 12 c., ~ ..i 13 t <~ 14

. 0($ ,-1 c,( iii 15 rs, ., ..i t' c., = 16 rs, .. - = N:t: 17 z< .... ~ 18 IC

19 li,;.l rt, rs, 20 ..:I ... rs,

21 00

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. In light of these circumstances, T am reqnesting today that this court prohibit the

defendants, the DOJ, and all of their rnspective officers, age11ts, servants, employees, .attorneys,

and persons acting in concert or participation with them, from enforcing Penal Code§§ 30600

(specifically, the prohibition against transportation), and 30605, pending trial and the

adjudication of the merits ofthis·action, or until plaintiffs, and a well-defined class ofsimilarly

situated individuals, are permitted a reasonable amount of time to register their firearms through

a properly-functioning public-faci.ng Internet-based registration system, as requirc;d by Pen. Code

§ 30900(b)(2).

13. The cil'cumstances described above, and as described by my fellow plaintiffs'

declarations in support of this motion, demonstrate that we will likely prevail in proving that the

inabilily of plaintiffs and many other people, similarly situated, to register such bullet-button

firearms according to the statute was not a technical or failure 011 our part, but was a systemic

failure on the part of the DOJ. Declaratory relief is requested to determine that I and the other

plaintiffs have been unreasonably deprived of the ability to comply with the registration

requirements of the law .

14. In the absence of such temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, we would face

potentially grave and irl'eparable injury associated with the substantially unjust deprivation of

liberty and property, and potentially severe criminal liabilities, due to no fault of our own, but

solely due to the failure of the DOJ to allow us a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law.

I declare under penalty ofpe(jury thiit the foregoing is true and correct,

Dated: ---------SHARP

4 DECL. OF HARRY SHARP [N SUPf'ORT~OFPLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ,.;i ,.;i

11 ~ ~ 12

~ 13

~~ 14 "Cl ,-;i rz 1; 15 ~& (.!le 16

~~ 17 ~~ ~. 18 r;J ~ 19

~ 20 ,ii

21 rri

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: ( 415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C . . 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 Fax: (910) 672-7705


SUPERIOR COURT OF TIIE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Petitioners,

vs.


Respondents.


Case No. 190350

DECLARATION OF PLAIN11FFIPETITJONER DAVID AJTROGI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[CCP § 527]


Sept. 10, 2018 8:30 a.m. 08 Hon. Tamara L. Wood

DECLARATION OF DA YID AJIROGI

I, David Ajirngi, declare as follows:

I. I am an .adult resident of tl1e County of Sacramento, California, and I am a named

plaintift)'petitioner in this matter. I have personal lmowledge of ilie facts stated in this

declaration, and if called as a witness, could competently testify thereto.

2. This declaration is executed in support of plaintiffs' motion for the issuance of a

preliminary injunction, made pursuant to Code ofCiv. Pro. § 527, whereby we are seeking an I

DECL. OF DAVID AJIROGI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 j

11 ~ ~ 12

~ 13

~.~ 14 ~ ..a ,=,:; 15 ;~

16 f:1 e No ~ 17

~ 18 1iJ p..

19 ~

~ 20 !ail

21 rJJ.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


possession statute, Pen. Code§ 30605, as well as the "tnmsportation" provision of the assault

weapon transportation statute found in Pen. Code§ 30605, pending the outcome of this

litigation. The reliefI and my fellow plaintiffs/petitioners are seeking would be as applied to


attempted to register "bullet button assault weapons" unsuccessfully due to the failure of the


3. I was born and raised in Hawaii, and I have been a resident of this state for over

30 years. I am a law-abiding individual, and I am not prohibited from owning firearms.

4. I am currently employed as an auditor with the EDD, and have been employed by

the State of Califomia for over 20 years. I am also actively involved as a Scoutmaster, Golden

Empire Council, with whom I have been involved for 28 years. I have been a camp director and

have been an NRA range master for a scout camp.

5. Prior to January 1, 2017, I lawfully acquired and possessed tl:nee firearms,


in that they do not have "fixed magazines" as that term was revised in Pen. Code§ 30515. (See

First Amended Complaint ("FAC") '1)'133-34.) It was and remains my intention to register these

· firearms in accordance with Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(l).

6. I fast began the attempts to register these firearms through the DOJ's Cl•ARS

website on Thursday, June 28, 2018. I created a CFARS accolillt with the intention of

registering the firearms at that time, where I was able to input basic personal information.

However, when I attempted to click onto the "Assault Weapon.Registration Form (Assembly Bill

1135/Senate Bill 880)" link, the system froze ("timed out"), became tmresponsive, and I was

unable to proceed any fi.nther. I spent approximately 20-30 minutes accessing the form that day,

to no avail.

7. I next tried agah1 on June 29, 2018, from my home in Sacramento, using a

different computer. However, I experienced the same problems as before, i.e., the CFARS

2 DECL. OF DAVID AJIROGl IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELJM INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


I

2

3

,4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10

11 ~ -<I! 12 (.')

~· 13 ;l.,

~~ 14 ~:3 r:4~ 15 ~ "' >-l tG'

~E 16

! 17 ~~ ~ 18 ~ ;l.,

19 µal ~ ~ 20 ~ Gl 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

system would "time out" and not allow me to acce.ss the registration fot·m. I contacted the DOJ

foi' assistance via email that day, but the DOJ never responded to my inquiry.

8. As a resultofthe DOJ system's failure to upload/accept my submissions, I was .

unable to register the three firearms that I intended to register prior to the Deadline.

9. In .light of these circumstances, I am requesting today that this court prohibit the

defendants, the DOJ, and all of their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,

and persons acting in concert or participation with them, from enforcing Penal Code §§ 30600

(specifically, the prohibition against transportation), and 30605, pending tl'ial and the

adjudication of the merits of this action, or until plaintiffs, and a ~ell-defined class of similarly~

situated indivichmls, are permitted a reasonable runount of time to register their firearms through I

a properly-functioning public-facing Internet-based registration system, as req1.iired by Pen. Code

§ 30900(b)(2).

10. The circumstances described above, aml as described by my fellow plaintiffs'

declarations in suppo1i of this motion, demonstrate that we will likely prevail in prnving that the

inability of plaintiffo and many other people, similarly situated, to register such bullet-button

firearms according to the statLLl:e was not a teclmical or fail me 011 our part, but was a systemic

failure on the part of the DOJ. Declaratory relief is requested to clete1mi11e that I and the other


requirements of the law.

l 1. In the absence of such tempomry or preliminru-y ilrjunctive relief, we would face

potentially grave imd irreparable injury associated with the substantially unjust deprivation of

liberty and property, and potentially severe criminal liabilities, due to no fault of our own, but

solely clue to the failw·e of the DOJ to allow us a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law.

I declare under penalty of perjw-y that the foregoinp; is true and correct.

Aug 7, 2018 Dated:

3

DA vm A.llROGl

--DECL. OF DAVlD AJ!ROGI [N SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' M01'l()NF-6R-PREL[!Vl. INJUNCTTON r• A~ 1:: l\.rn , (~n'.'.l. °'ri


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ~

11

~ 12 C!)

~ 13 Po<

~~ 14 ~ >-< i:i:1 "'; 15 ~ ~~ C!) ~ 16 ~ ... Nii 17 ~-< l'ail 18 til Po<

19 J,.q

! 20 l'ail

21 "1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) Douglas A Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 Fax: (910) 672-7705




Petitioners,

vs.


Respondents.


Case No. 190350

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER RYAN GILARDY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[CCP § 527]


Sept. 10, 2018 8:30 a.m. 08 Hon. TamaraL. Wood

DECLARATION OF RYAN GILARDY

I, Ryan Gilardy, declare as follows:

1. I am an adult resident of the County of Contra Costa, California, and I am a

named plaintiff/petitioner in this matter. I have personal lmowledge of the facts stated in this



preliminary iqjunction, made pursuant to Code of Civ. Pro. § 527, whereby we are seeking an 1

DECL. OF RY AN GILARDY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELJM. INJUNCTION CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ ~

10 ~ 11 ~ ~ 12

~ 13

!'a ~ 14 ~~ ~~ 15 ~~ C!) .,

16 f:1 e N! 17 ~ ~ 18 cs Cl.)

~ 19 r"'1

~ 20

~ 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


possession statute, Pen. Code§ 30605, as well as the "transportation" provision of the assault


litigation. The relief I ru1d my fellow plaintiffs/petitioners are seeking would be as applied to





state. I am a law-abiding individual, ru1cl I run not prohibited from owning firearms.

4. I am currently working on my bachelor's degree in neurobiology. I am currently

employed as a contract researcher ru1d lecturer for a local community college ii:t a natural

sciences field. I previously have been working under a grant from a national scientific

foundation, which provides funds for education and research in the natural sciences and

educational fields. Prior to my cunent work, I was also ru1 information teclmology (IT)

professional, having done consulting for individuals and smali busi11esses, pait time, mostly

histalling ru1d maintaining computer network seclU'ity systems, general infrasl:ructui-e updates,

and other IT services.

5. Priorto Jrummy 1, 2017, I lawfully acquired and possessed three fll'earms,


in that they do not have "fixed magazines" as that term was revised in Pen. Code § 3 0515. (See

First Amended Complaint ("FAC'') n 33-34.) It was and remains my intention to register these

firearms in accordance with Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(l).

6. Approximately one month before the statutory registration deadline of July I,

2018 ("Deadline"), I contacted the California Depru1ment of Justice ("DOJ'') out of concern for

1he Department's CFARS system, and the registration process generally. I did so before

establishing a CFARS account, with the intention ofregistering, prior to the Deadline, the three

bullet button firearms, jointly with other family members. I contacted DOJ at that time because I

2 DECL. OF RYAN GILARDY TN SUPPORT OF PLAlNTlFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ~ ~ II i:J ~ 12

~ 13 !>;

~~ 14 ~ ,_;i ~; 15 ~~ "e 16 i::l <:>

N~ 17 ~ !:] 18 Cl) !>;

19 ..;i ~ ~ 20 i:::l ~ 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

had heard that there may be issues regarding "timeouts" (i.e., computer freezes) when people

were attempting to make the required payments. I also wanted to make sure that I better

understood the registration process and the information required for submission. During this

telephone conversation I had with a DOJ official, she told me that they expected that there would

be "time outs" with the system, due to the high volume of people who would be attempting to

register in the last month, and therefore advised me to take "extra time" to undergo the process.

At that time, she specifically told me that I might experience "time outs" during the process, but

to keep trying and I would get through eventually after several attempts. I was also advised to

try to register during "non-peak" times.

7. After this conversation with the DOJ, and in anticipation of the process, during

the month of June I began to gather all required information and documentation as to the three

firearms in question, including "all identification marks, the date the firearm was acquired, the

name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which, the firearm was

acquired," as required by Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(3). I also gathered additional documentation

specifically required for joint registration, i.e., proof ofresidency for each joint registrant, and I

took the four required digital photographs tl1at the DOJ was requiring of each :firearm. I did so

approximately two weeks before the Deaclline to avoid any delays and problems about which the

DOJ was informing me.

8. Having gathered all of the required information, documentation and photographs,

I began the registration process on-line on or about June 22, 2018, by accessing CF ARS and

attenipting to. fill out information required upon openiug the system's "Assault Weapon

Registration Form (Assembly Bill 1135/Senate Bill 880)." However, during this process, and

upon attempting to submit the additional documentation required for joint registration (proof of

residency), the system "timed out" and 111ereby prevented me from completing the registration

process.

9. Thereafter, and throughout the.week of June 25, 2018, I made many more

attempts to complete the registration process, to no avail. The system continued to "time out"

upon aliemptecl submission ·of the documentation. As a former IT professional, I took care to 3

DECL, OF RYAN GlLARDY lN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PR.ELIM. !NnJNCTION CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

p., 10 ~ ~

11

~ 12 (.!I

el 13 I'-;

!l ~ 14 ~,..:i P'i 1:l 15 el t, § s 16 No

17 ~ ~ l'.i 18 E-< CJ)

~ 19 P'i l'.i t:::l.

20 l'.i

21 if)

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

make sure that I was using up-to-date computer systems and fully-updated web browsers. I also

attempted to use multiple computer devices (including a "smart phone" easily capable of

processing pictures), and did so from multiple locations, including my home in Contra Costa

County. I attempted using different devices, Internet browsers, Internet service providers, and

networks, all to no avail. I verified my bandwith and latency were in a consistent range by

performing Internet speed tests and made sure there were no issues on my side of the connection.

Tests showed my connections were strong, stable and should have been more than adequate to

perform the registration process, but the CF ARS servers timed out repeatedly. I also attempted

to reduce the photo size (as measured in megabits) for the four photographs that were being

required, to make sure that the file size was not the issue.

10. Notwithstanding these repeated and extensive efforts to complete the registration

process, I was only able to submit one of the three registrations I had prepared, and that was only

after I had abandoned efforts to submit the joint registrations, which would have required the

additional information/documents. That one successful submission came only after maldng at

least 14 attempts to register that particular :firearm. The submission for the other two

semiautomatic :firemms never went tl,rough, due to the system's defects and failures, including

"time outs" which would not allow the information to be submitted.

l 1. I attempted to register multiple times the week before the Deadline, including

approximately five (5) hours on June 30, 2018, to no avail. As a result o:fthe DOJ system's

failure to upload/accept my submissions, I was unable to register two of the firearms that I

intended to register jointly with eligible family members prior to the Deadline.

12. A lrne and correct video I took, documenting and demonstrating my attempts to

register on June 30, 2018, and in particular, showing tl,e runount oftirne (over five minutes) the

system was taldng to upload one single photograph file of 2.0 MB in size, before ultimately

timing out, may be found at: )1ttp://bit.lv/Gilardy_ Video 001. Another video showing what

happened when I attempted to call the DOJ for help on June 30, 2018 may be found at:

http://bit.ly/Gilardv Video oo,

13. In light of these cfrcmnstances, I am requesting today that this court prohibit the

4 DECL. OF RYAN GfLARDY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PREL!iv!. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


I

2

3

4

5

6

7

s

9

i:i.., ro :s II

~ 12 !:'.{

13 Q. Q. :I' :.$ 14

~~ 15 est· ie 16

N! 17 ~~

~ 18

roil 1.9

~ 20 i:.;i !ill 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defendants,the DOJ, and all of their r-:spective offiCllrn, agents, servm1ts, employees, attorneys,

and persons acting in concert or participation with' them, from enforcing Penal Code §§ 30600

(specifically, the prohibition against transporta'lion), and 30605, pending trial and the

adjudication of the merits. of this action, or until plaintiffs, and a well-defined class of similarly

situated individuals, are perinitted a reasonable amount of time to register their firearms through

a properly-functioning public-facing Intern.et-based registration system, as required by Pen. Cod ,

§ 30900(b)(2).

14. The circumstances described above, and as described by my fellow plaintiffs'

declarations in support of this motion, demonstrate that we will likely prevail in proving that the .

inability of plaintiffs. and many other people, similarly situated, to register such bullet-button

firearms according to the statute was not a technical or failure on our. part, but was a systemic

failure on the part of the DOJ. Declaratory relief is requested to determine th.."lt I alld the 01her

plaintiffs ha.ve been unreasonably deprived of the ability to comply with the registration ·

niquirement':I of the law.

IS. fo the absence of such. temporary or preliminary injunctive reliet: we would face

pote11tially g.rave and ii:reparable injury associated ·with the wbsmntiaily 111yust deprivation of

I iberty and property, and potentially StWere criminal liabilities, due to no fault of our own, but

solely due to the failure of the DOJ to allow us, a reasonable oppmtunity to comply with the law.

l declare under perudty of p0..rjury that the foregoing; is true and correct.

5 DEC!,. OF RYANG!LA.RDY IN SUPPORT OF l'f,AlNTIFl'S' MOTION FOR PR.ELIM INJUNC'l'f<.iV

CA:m No. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

j 10

11

~ 12 " tj 13 I";

~~ 14 ~,..;i

~~ 15 ~

(J E! 16

~~ 17 ~ -<I:!

"" 18 !ii I";

19 ~

~ 20

"" 21 ifJ

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: ( 415) 979-05 00 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) . THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C.

2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 Fax: (910) 672-7705




Petitioners,

vs.


· Respondents.

FOR Tiffi COUNTY OF SHASTA

Case No'. 190350

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TERRY JAHRAUS IN SU1'P0RT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE 01' PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[CCP § 527]



DECLARATION OF TERRY JAHRAUS

I, Terry Jahraus, declare as follows:

1. I an1 ,m adult resident of the County of Los Angeles, California, imd I am a named

plaintiff/petitioner in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this



preliminmy iqjunction, made pursuant to Code ofCiv. Pro. § 527, whereby we are seeking an 1

DECL. OF TERRY JAHRAUS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10

~ 11 e:1 <ti 12 (:.t)

~ 13

!i: ~ 14 ~j ~~ 15 e, ~ § ~ 16

~~ 17

~ 18 IZl p..

19 i;.;i . ~

~ 20 IS<

21 CIJ

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

injunction prohibiting the tempormy and preliminary enforcement of the assault weapon


weapon transportation statute found in Pen. Code § 30605, pending the outcome of this

litigation. The relief I and my follow plaintiffs/petitioners are seeking would be as applied to

myself and my fellow plaintiffs/petitioners, as well as an identifiable class of persons who.


California Depmtment of Justice's registration system.

3. I lived in California since the age of five, and I have otherwise been a lifelong

resident of this state. I am a law-abiding individual, and I am not prohibited from owning

firearms.

4. I an1 currently retired from being in the real estate business for.40+ years, though

I still manage properties and continue to maintain my real estate licenses with the California

Bureau of Real Estate. I am also a Vietnam Veteran, having served in the U.S. Marine Corps in

that theater from 1969-1971, and was honorably discharged in 1971. I went into the real estate

business after returning _from Vietnam.

5. Prior to January 1, 2017, I lawfully acquired and possessed a firemn1, equipped

with a bullet-button device, which tl1e Legislahire in 2016 defined as an "assault weapon" in that

it does not have a "fixed magazine" as that term was revised in Pen. Code§ 30515. (See First

Amended Complaint ("FAC") ,N 33-34.) It was and remains my i~tention to register this firearm

in accordance witl1 Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(l).

6. _On June 30, 2018, I lem·ned for the first time, by watching tlle news on television,

that I was being required to register my "bullet button assault weapon" as such with the

California DOJ. 1hls was the first I ever heard about this requirement, having received no

formal notice from the DOJ or any other source. In order to comply with the law, prior to the

deadline of July I, 2018 at midnight ("Deadline"), I attempted to access and submit a registration

form with tl1e DOJ's system, after establishing a CFARS account for 111is pmpose. However,

upon uploading the four required photographs to the site, I received an error message that my

2 DECL. OF TERRY JAHRAUS IN SUPPORT OF PLAlNTlFFS' MOTION FOR PREL!M. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ...:i 11 1:; < 12 (,!)

~ 13

!l ~ 14 <>?J H 1Z "t;J 15 ~~ ,..;i "' (,!) s 16 f::I 0

~~ 17

~ 18 i:i..

19 i:.-1 1Z ~ 20 i:::l ~

Cl) 21

22

. 23

24

25

26

27

28

submission had "invalid characters" in the address field. I tried all variations of my address that

I could think of, but the system would not accept it. I then logged out and back in, and restarted

the process, but each time I received the "invalid characters" error message, and I was unable to

proceed further. I spent a total oftln·ee (3) hours tl1at evening, prior to the Deadline, attempting

to submit the registration form, to no avail. Per the recommendation on the DOJ' s website, I

tried using different web browsers to access and submit, but tllis didn't work.

7. As a result of tl1e DOJ system's inaccessibility, I was miable to register the

firearm that I intended to register prior to the Deadline.

8. The following Monday, July 2, 2018, I contacted fue DOJ for assistance, but the

DOJ official told me, in essence, that it was my responsibility to comply with the law and that I

had all year to do so. In other words, the DOJ representative was blaming me for failing to

register, even though its system was inaccessible and defective in failing to allow me ·10 submit

the form before the Deadline.

9. A true and correct picture I took of the "invalid character" enor that I was

repeatedly receiving on Juoe 30, 2018, preventing me from submitting the r~gistration form, is·

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

10. In light of tl1ese circumstances, I am requesting today that tl1is court prohibit the

defendants, the DOJ, ,md all of their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,

and persons acting in concert or participation wifu them, from enforcing Penal Code §§ 30600


adjudication of the merits of this action, or until plaintiffs, and a well-defined class of siniilarly

situated individuals, are permitted a reasonable amount of tinie to register their firearms tlu·ough

. a properly-functioning public-facing Internet-based registration system, as required by Pen. Code

§ 3 0900(b )(2).


declarations in suppo1i of this motion, demonstrate that we will likely prevail in proving that the

inability of plaintiffs and many ot!1er people, similarly situated, to register such bullet-button

:firearms according to the statute was not a technical or failure on our part, but was a systemic 3 .

,______________ ------------! DECL. OF TERRY JAHRAUS IN SU1'PORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


i:i... :j ~ tJ

~ ~ft;

~~ ~~ & ~e ! ~<

~ i;.ril

~ rail 00

1 failure on the part of the DOJ. Declaratory relief is requested to determine that I and the other

2 plaintiffs have been unreasonably deprived of the ability to comply with the registration

3 requirements of the law.

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

12. In the absence of such temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, we would face

potentially grave and irreparable injur~associated with the substantially unjust deprivation of

liberty and property, and potentially severe climinal liabilities, due to no fault of our own, but

solely due to the failure of the DOJ to allow us a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated:~-- f4/S.o/f' 4;,Qi, ___ , _____ , __ ~YJAHRAUS

4 DECL. OF TERRY JAHRAUS Hf SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PF.ELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


,,

EXHIBIT A


: :~~~1f ~t~~~~J~~~~1:~·i,~~;:~,~~~;~;~l~:~~'.!~~i~~:9:~r-r~~t#'?J~:,:'LYi'''•'· i \' ,'l~ti\'!~fo:e Strl,\~tAtictri;s!;,' ·i~Jl;fg\1{f~c\ ?·/ ,-- . : . · _

"£, ',;,;,,-.,:, -.• , - ' •• ! ' •- ·', •• , • ,.,..• : .. ,!. .•., • ~.. a ·-

fs.,iif~n .0nd~ti¥:e:9,I$ eiit~i~t1)j;g~~1JI~i:i~~' fith~~t ~cla'r¢-~~·:j~_ reqllireii·_ ; ;~t1;;F'i:.·.:~:.:.":'.·.,::::· ... :.';,\.: .:c.t(;.~·· · · .. ·: · · , .. .,_ -·~~-~·: !·~-:,.~, "~··, /·, .... ~ · ;. , . ; . ··_:·,. ·,,t•:··. ::-'.,,~ .., , ~ ,... ' ·· ···' i t-J!~~~fl).g:gj)~\ f_:ohtain~; b11e-d(ITid~e.itiY~ljd •tti'cit~t-ter~. [i_;J:\:;·;:.:·~.: -. ·. ···~·,,---.,_-;:~.: ... -' ' t//t/~ .. :(Jdi _;~,;~·~,:''"" .;

~.¥rj9:t~~~~~~.~ilt~w.~~~?~ Re,qi1:$~~~f o~;q~~r .cftit~~~R;'.ffe~tcnl·::·r,-:,,F;,-_,, ~· '' ·-··


I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

es 10 ~ II

~ 12 I;.')

~ 13

<~ 14 <>cl ....:1 ~= 15

~~ 16 r::l z N~ 17 ~ laa E--< 18 00 !l..

19 r;.'1 1Z laa 20 ~ laa VJ 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 60 I Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: ( 415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM,P.C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 Fax: (910) 672-7705




Petitioners,

vs.


Respondents.


Case No. 190350

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER DARIN PRINCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY IN.JUNCTION

[CCP § 527]



DECLARATION OF DARIN PRINCE

I, Darin Prince, declare as follows:

1. I am an adult resident of 1he Comity of San Diego, California, and I am a nan1ed

plaintiff/petitioner in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this

declaration, and if called as -a witness, could competently testify thereto.

2. This declaration is executed in support of plainti1Is' motion for the issuance of a

preliminary irrjuuction, made pursuant to Code o:fCiv. Pro.§ 527, whereby we Bre seeking an 1

DECL. OF DARIN PRINCE !N SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. IN.JUNCTION CASE NO. 1903 50


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ~ 11 ~ cS 12

~ 13 ll-<

~~ 14 ~ ,-a J:l:1~ 15 ~.~ (.!) e 16

~~ 17 ~< I"< 18 H ~

19 Jaal

~ 20

21 rJJ.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




litigation. The reliefI and my fellow plaintiffs/petitioners arn seeldng would be as applied to

myself and my fellow plaintiffs/petitionern, as well as an identifiable class of persons who


California Depal'tment of Justice's registration system.

3. I was born ru1d raised in California, and I have been a lifelong resident of this

state. I am a law"abiding individual, and I run not prohibited from owning firearms. I have a

Certificate of Eligibility (COE) issued to me by the California Department of Justice, and have a

license to carry a concealed firearm (CCW) issued to me by my cmmty sheriff.

4. I am the owner of North Coast Firearms, a federally-licensed firearms dealership

(FFL) ru1d range and training facility, in the County of Sru1 Diego, California.

5. Prior to January 1, 2017, I lawfully acquired and possessed mru1y firerums,

equipped with bullet"button devices, which the Legislatme in 2016 defined as "assault weapons"


First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ir~ 33"34.) It was and remains my intention to register all

such firearms in accmdance with Pen. Code § 30900(b)(l).

6. On June 30, 2018, I attempted to register my "bullet button assault weapons"

from my home in San Diego County,. California. At first, I was unable to access the DOJ' s

registration website (https://cfars.doi.ca.gov) at all, as the site was inaccessible, f;]ncl would "time

out" while attempting to access it. After about four ( 4) hours that evening, I was finally able to

log in, and when I did finally start loading all of the firearm information into the system, it was

approximately 10:50 p.m. I was able to upload information and photographs required for seven

(7) firearms, but at approxinlately 11 : 15 p.111., tl1e system ldcked me out, deleting my submission

and forcing me to log in and start all over again. Upon re-entering the CFARS system, ru1d re

inputting the information, I was asked to enter my home address. I reentered everything exactly

2 DECL. OF DARIN PRINCE IN SUPPORT OF PLATNTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. l 90350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

j 10

11

~ 12 C,

~ 13

!il ~ 14 ~ ,-:i l:i:i t;j 15 ~ ~' C, "' 16 /::1 s N:g 17 i!::i~ ~ 18 "' i:,.

19 ~ l:i:i I"< 20 i::I &3 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as I had before, but this time, I received an eITor message that my attempted submission had

"invalid characters" in the home address field. I then attempted every 'combination of letter and

variations on my address that I could think of, but the system would continue to give me the

en·or message and would not let me proceed, 1 contacted the DOJ via email for technical

assistance regarding the eJTor messages I was receiving, but the DOJ did not respond to my

inquiry. I spent a total of approximately six ( 6) hours attempting to complete all of the

registration forms, to no avail.

7. A true and correct copy of my email to the DOJ, sent on Jtme 30, 2018 at 11 :51

p.m., which also shows the specific e1mr message I was receiving ("'Street Address' contains

one or more invalid characters")' and which was preventing my submissions, is attached hereto a~

E1hibitA.

8. At 11 :58 p.m., even though I was able to complete uploading of information m1d

photographs of several of the firearms, I was m1able to enter information m1d upload photographs

_for all that I intended to register that evening. Given the impending midnight deadline, I

finished, submitted and paid for registration seven of the firem·ms that were in my "cart" at the ·

time. However, due to the DOJ website's repeated inaccessibility m1d e11·ors, I was tmable to

register severi other firearms that I had intended to register prior to the Deadline.

9. In light oftl1ese circumstances, I am requesting today that this court prohibit the

defendm1ts, the DOJ, and all of their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,

m1d persons acting in conceti or participation with them, from enforcing Penal Code § § 30600


adjudication of the merits of this action, or until plaintiff~, and a well-defined: class of similarly~

situated individuals, are pemutted a reasonable mnooot of time to register their firearms through

a properly-fi.111ctionh1g public-fach1g Internet-based registration system, as required by Pen. Code

§ 30900(b)(2).

10. The circumstfillces described above, and as described by my fellow plaintiffs'

declarations in support of this motion, demonstrate that we will likely prevail in proving that tl1e

3 DECL. OF DARIN PIUNCE IN SID'PORT Of PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


' '

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~· 10 .,;i

11 M

~ d 12

~ 13

~i 14 "<I -1 ~ '.; 15 r.l ..:I~ (.!I "' 16 l>l ..

N~ 17 z~ .... ~ I& ~

19 (,::)

~ 20 d Jail

21 Cl)

22

. 23

24

25

26

27

28

inabilily of plaintiffs and many other people, similarly situated, to register such bullct•button

fireanns according to the statute was nor a technical or failure on our part, but was a systemic

failure on the parl of the DOJ. Declaratory relief is requested to dctc1mine Lhut.T and the other

plaintiffs have been unreasonably deprived of the ability to comply with the rcgisLraticm

req11irements of the law.

11. In the absence of such temporary m· preliminary inju<1ctive relief, we would face

'potentially grave ai,d irreparable injury associated with the substantially unjust deprivation of

libert)' mid property, and potentially severe criminal liabilities, due Lo no fault of our own, but

solely due 'to the failure of the DOJ to allow us a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law,

Dated: ~tJ/_7,_)_8 __

4 DF.CL. OF lJAHJN-PlUNCE !N .. SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRF..LlM. lNJUNCTION .

CAimNo. 190350 ·


EXHIBIT A


-----Orlglnal Message----From: dlprlnce1 <[email protected]> To: firearms.bureau <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 11:51 pm Subject: CFARS Is locking me out without letting me finish registration

FORM INSTRUCTIONS AND FEE INFORMATION - REVIEW BEFORE CONTINUING (touch or click this banner to view)

• Indicates Required Field

--------··- ~ "·-------Form submission f~iled due to issues requiring correction:

'Street Address' contains one or more Invalid characters

'Street Address' contains one or more invalid characters.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ,.;i

11 !:l ~ 12

~ 13

!ii pl: 14 <'I Cl($ ,-:i

~~ 15 . ;:l ~· C!) I: 16

~ il 17 ~< !:5 18 ff) I>< iaal 19

a 20 I"< 00. 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Rayillond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P .C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 Fax: (910) 672-7705

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners .

SUPEIUOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Petitioners,

vs.


Respondents.


Case No. 190350

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER Toon FELTMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAlNTIF'FS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF

PRELIMINARY INJUNGI'ION

[CCP § 527]



DECLARATION OF TODD FELTMAN

I, Todd Feltman, declare as follows:

1. I am an adult resident of the COlmty of San Diego, California, and I am a named

plaintiffi'petitioner in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this

declaration, and if .called as a witness, could competently testify thereto.

2. This declaration is executed in supp01i of plaintiffs' motion for the issuance of a

preliminary il~unction, made pursuant to Code ofCiv. Pro. § 527, whereby we are seeking an J

DECL. OF TODD FELTMAN fN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELJM. INJUNCTION CASE NO. 190350


' I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26



weapon trnnsportationstatute found in Pen. Code§ 30605, pending the outcome of this

litigation. ThereliefI and my fellow plaintiffs/petitioners me seeking would be as applied to


attempted to register "bullet button assault weapons" unsuccessfully due to the fail me of the

Califomia Department of Justice's registration system.


state. I am a law-abiding individual, and I am not prohibited from owning firearms.

4. I am a Senior Project Manager with the United States General Services

Administration (GSA), San Diego Construction Services Brnnch. Part ofmy work for this

government agency includes basic use and familim'ity with computers and computer networks.

5. Prior to January 1, 2017, I lawfully acquired and possessed several firearms,



First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ,r,r 33-34.) It was and remains my intentioll'to register these

firearms ·in accordance with Pen. Code§ 30900(b}(l).

6. On June 30, 2018, prior to the statutory deadline of midnight, July 1, 2018

("Deadline"), I attempted to register these fireanus utilizing the DOJ's CFARS system from my

home in San Diego Comity. After creating a CFARS account, I began to enter into the system all

information for the first of the firearms I was attempting to register. However, after entering all

required information regarding the first firearm, and upon attempting to upload the required

pictures, the system would "crash" when I attempted to hit the "Submit Final" icon, requiring me

to start over with the form completely.

7. After the system timed out, I repeated the effort, making multiple attempts, using

27 different web browsers and different Internet connections, all to no avail, as I encountered the

28 same problems and system errars. I also looked and followed the DOJ's reconui1endations

2 . DECL. OF TODD FELTMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PREUM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


' I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

es 10

...:i 11 ~ -< 12 c:,

~ 13

.~ ~ 14 c//.! ..:I .:,:: 1. 15 ~ t· §e 16

N~ 17 ~""-1 !=) <Zl

18 P-i

19 ~ .:,::

~ 20

"" 21 rF)

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

regarding clearing of web caches and "cookies." I also used different devices (different

computers) to attempt to remedy the issue, all to no avail. I attempted to contact the DOJ

regarding these issues, prior to the Deadline, but the DOJ never responded to my inquiry.

8. A trne and correct screenshot of my computer, showing that everything had been

re-uploaded and prepared prior to the Deadline, that I had checked the "Agree" box, and was

attempting to submit it on my third attempt before the system froze and timed out, is attached

hereto as Exhibit A.

9. A true and correct video I took, documenting and demonstrating my attempts to

register on June 30, 2018, with the CF ARS "timeout" experienced upon hitting the "Submit

Final" icon may be found at: http://bit.ly/Felt1mm Video 001

10. As a result of the DOJ system's failure to upload/accept my submissions, I was

unable to register tl1e three firearms that I intended to register pt'ior to the Deadline.

11. In light of these circmnstances, I am requesting today that this court prohibit the

defendants, the DOJ, and all of their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attomeys,

and persons acting in concert or pmiicipation with them, from enforcing Penal Code §§ 30600 ·

(specifically, tl1e prohibition against transportation), and 30605, pending trial and the

adjudication of the merits of 1his action, or until plaintiffs, and a well-defined class of similarly

situated individuals, are pennitted a reasonable amount oftime to register their fn·earms through

a properly-fi.mctioning public-facing Internet-based registration system, as req1iired by Pen. Code

§ 30900(b)(2).

12. The circnmstances described above, and as described by my fellow plaintiffs'

declaratiomi in support of this motion, demonstrate that we will likely prevail in proving that tl1e

inability of plaintiffs and many other people, similarly situated, to rngister such bullet-button

firearms according to the statute was not a technical or failure on our pmt, but was a systemic

failure on the part of the DOJ. Declaratory relief is requested to determine that I and the other

plaintiffs hav; be,m w1reasonably deprived of the ability t:o comply wi1h the registration

requirements of the law.

13. In the absence of such- temporary or preliminm·y injll11ctive reliet; we would face 3

DECL OF TODD FELTMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAlNTlFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. LNJUNCT[ON CASENO. 190350


~ ...:i ~ ~ ;'.;l ~ ~t di1 ,_;] ~~

~~ @ El N~ ~<ti ,.. ~

J:ai1 ~

"" ~ [J'1

' ,

1 potentially grave a11cl irreparable injury associated with the substantially unjust deprivation of

2 liberty and property, and potentially severe criminal liabilities, due to no fault of our own, but

3 solely clue to the failure of the DOJ to allow us a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law.

4 I declare under penalty of pe1j my that the foregoing is true and correct.

5 Todd

Digitally signed by Todd Follman

Fe It man .DN: cn;Todd Feltman, o, ou, •mall; ,~us Date: 2018.08.0710:02:03 ·07'00' 6 Dated:

Aug. 7, 2018

7 TODD FELTMAN

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 oEcL. or Tooo FELTMAN ff-TsLfPPORT oF PLA1N'frrFs;-Mo'r10N FOR rRELJM:tNJuNcTroN


EXHIBIT A


, , ...,.;:c,.~,,. ..... , .~ ... "···:-~"··'"'"';'-·-·--<--· .. ,<,·:,-·.~~-=-~·~·••~----~-,=---~u~~~=·•we-.'4.ffi\..'V~-$,.;·-~-·~~~•~•><,<r:~• --~~-~.r¥:::•~~'-I'."'''-"'""·~ ~OV· .'IL, !. l":,;i:..t?; :J·'':-.• ·1·1"a"·, .;, ,.;r; '. :.'".'H ;.'. i, wi,. ,J.:

~ SDSC lit ·so-ca ~ USMSR.WA L, USMSTucso1, mil USMSD1m:op¢. JEI tGEPMO ilf 0!'11 ~ EASXguide t., TtC:1-ISE.P.'li!CES "

[+ ~;'!.~-4 o_,,'._l::~~:-' __ , __________ , _________________ _ --------·---- ·--------·-··_.\:29, Off

Uplo.1.ded Rlgh~ Side ot RecelverlFrame RtGHT JPG

Uploaded Lett Sld·e of Rec.etvflrlFrame LEFT JPG

up10adec1. ~ullat Sutton Stylia Magatme R!lease BB JPG

1 declare under f)efialty or perjury uoder me la'NS or the State of Callfam!a tnal the roregoing tS true anCI correct an<J tllat I am lh-e la'IAUI owner of all assault weapons !hat I seek 10 have registered: 1 eX{)ress~ authOrize the Department ot Justice to perform tlrearms el1g1bility checks ot an reteyant state and federal da1abases. tnctudmg the F'edernl Bureau or 1iwest1ga1ton's Nallonal Instant Ctlnunat BacKgroumJ CMck syste.m I also umre-ratand that If I currently possess or own fireanns anu the results ar this c11eclt reveal thal I am inel!g1ble e1t11er to lnwtulty posses.so, purctmsG nrearms. I mus! reftnquish any and an nrearms in my possession -AgrH- !l1

Pr&i\sa c!1cl( buttons Or'w~e. MuHlPI& ctu:ks wl!I t1e1a~ procmm.g

[ E<1!1.aJ ( Sutimlt Final j

Cf-AR$ Home > CRIS Home

•


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 :j

11 !:l . ~ 12

~ 13

~ ~. 14 ~,-l ix; lJ 15 ~~ " e 16 e:l 0

~~ 17

t:1 18 tll I"<

19 ~ ix;

~ 20

"" 00 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P .C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 Fax: (910) 672-7705

Attomeys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners




Petitioners,

vs.


Respondents.

Case No. 190350

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER

DAVID KUEHL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FORlsSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

[CCP § 527]

Date: Time: Dept. Judge;


DECLARATION OF DAVID KUEHL

I, David Kuehl, declare as follows:

1. I am an adult resident of the County of Fresno, California, and I am a named

. plaintiff/petitioner in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this



preliminary injunction, made pursuant to Code ofCiv. Pro. § 527, whereby we are seeking an 1

DECL. OF DAVID KUEHL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10

11

~ 12 " ~. 13

~t 14 ~,..;i

IZ~ 15 fj ~~ " "' 16 f:1 ~ ~~ 17

r.i f-< 18 if1 ~

19 ~

~ 20 1::1 r.i

21 r,:i

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


possession statute, Pen. Code § 30605, as well as tl1e "transportation" provision of tlie assault

weapon transportation statute found in Pen. Code§ 30605, pending tlie outcome of this

litigation. The relief I and my fellow plaintiffs/petitioners are seeking would be as applied to

myself and my fellow plaintiffs/petitioners, as well as an identifiable'class of persons who

attempted to register "bullet button assault weapons" unsuccessfully due to tlie failure of tlie ·

California Department of Justice's regish·ation system.

3. I was born and raised in Califomia, and I have been a lifelong resident of this

state. I am a law-abiding individual, a:nd I am not prohibited from owning fn·eanns.

4. I am cunently retired, having served as an engineering technician, and a member

of the fire protection department, among otl1erresponsibilities, with Exxon Mobil for over 30

years. I was also a paid reserve firefighter witl1 tlie City ofNapa Fire Dept. from approx. 1970-

1982. I am also a military veteran, having been honorably discharged by the U.S. Coast Gmu-d

in 1988. For over 7 years, I have held a license to carry a concealed firearm (CCW) issued by

my county sheriff, after proving "good cause" arid good moral charncter to the issuing agency,

after successfully completing a course of training on the law and firearms proficiency, and

passing an extensive Live Scan-based background check.

5. Prior to January 1, 2017, I lawfully acquired and possessed a firearm, equipped

with a bullet-button device, which the Legislature in 2016 defined as an "assault weapon" in that

it does not have a "fixed magazine" as that term was revised in Pen. Code § 30515. (See First

Amended Complaint ("FAC") ,r,r 33-34.) It was and remains my intention to register this firearm

in accordance with Pen. Code § 30900(b )(1).

6. On June 30, 2018, prior to the deadline of midnight July 1, 2018 ("Deadline"), I

attempted to register the firearm from my home in Fresno County, California. When I attempted

to access the CF ARS system from my computer at that time, I could not get onto the system at

all. I received ei-ror messages about the website not being available. I made multiple attempts to

access the DOJ's website for the p1U])Ose·ofregistration, but was unable to get on, and was

2 DECL. OF DA YID KUEHL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'· MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10

11

~ 12 0 "1 ,..:i 13 I'.

<t 14 "'<?l .... P4 ~ 15 ~~ 0 ., 16 ~1 17 ~ /Sil ~ 18 I'.

19 f;:;l P4 ~ 20 .... ~ 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unable to proceed further. At that time, my Internet connection was working properly, as I was

able to access other websites.

7. As a result of the DOJ system's inaccessibility, I was unable to register the

firearm that I .intended to register prior to the Deadline.

8. In light of these circumstances, I am requesting today that this court prohibit the

defendants, the DOJ, and all of their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,

and persons acting in concert 01· participation with them, from enforcing Penal Code §§ 30600


adjudication of the merits of this action, or until plaintiffs, and a well-defined class of similarly

sitmtted individuals, are permitted a reasonable amount of time to register their firearms through

a properly-flmctioning public-facing Intemet-based registration system, as required by Pen. Cod

§ 30900(b)(2).


declarations in support of this motion, demonstrate that we will likely prevail in proving that the

inability of plaintiffs and many other people, similady situated, to register such bullet-button

firearms according to the statute was not a technical or failure on our part, but was a systemic

· failure on the part of the DOJ. Declaratory relief is requested to determine tl1at I and the other


requirements of the law ..

10. In the absence of such temporary or preliminary injtmctivc relief, we would face

potentially grave and irreparable injury associated with the substantially unjust deprivation of

libetiy and property, and potentially severe criminal liabilities, due to no fault of our own, but

solely clue to the failure of the DO.I to allow us a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Aug 6, 2018 Dated: . -·-----·-·---

3

DAVID KUEHL

DECL. OF DAVID KUEHL lN_S.UPPORT OF PLA-IN_T_I_FI-'S' MOTION FOR PREL!IYI. JNjuN·cnON --


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

j 10

11 1:) ~ 12

~ 13 ?,,

!a ~ 14 ~ >-< '~ 1;j 15

J'-l "'

''"' ~ ij e 16 -o N~ 17 ~

~ 18 ?,,

19 ~ ~ J'-l 20 '"' -J'-l

21 r:,;

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 601. Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 979-0500 Fax: .(415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P .C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Plione: (910) 713-8804 Fax: (910) 672-7705




HARRY SHARP, et al., Case No. 190350

Petitioners,

vs.

. . DECLARATlONOFMICHAELD. MIYABARA-MCCASKEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION XAVIER BECERRA, et al.,

[CCP § 527] Respondents.

Date; Time: Dept. Judge:

I, Michael D. Miyabara-McCaskey, declare as follows:

Sept. 10, 2018 8:30 a.m. 08 Hon. Tam1ua L. Wood

1. I am an adult vesident of San Jose, California. I have been retained as an expert

witness/consultant by plaintiffs' counsel for the matters stated herein. My qualifications are set

forth in more detail. below. Except as otherwise noted i)erein, I have personal knowledge of the

matters and opinions stated in this declaration, and if called as a wit.ness, could competently ·

testify thereto.

II I .

DEC!,. OF MICHAEL M!YADARA-MCCASKEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION"" CASE NO. 190350


. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

f:l.. 10 ,...;i ,...;i

11

~ 12 (.!)

:l 13 ~

<~ 14 ~>-< l"i ";i 15 :l t' ~e 16 - Q

~~ 17 -~ 18 p..

19 r..i l"i I'< 20 ,-l -r"1

21 00

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


preliminary injunction, made pursuant to Code ofCiv. Pro.§ 527.

3. I have specifically been retained as an expe1t witness/consultimt by plaintiffs'

counsel t_o provide this cow·t with information and an opinion regarding the likely causes of the

inability of plaintiffs, and other members of the pubic, to maintain connections with the

California Department of Justice's assault weapons registration system, and/or to successfully

submit assault weapon registration forms to the DOJ.

QUALIFICATIONS

4. I am a senior IT Systems/Enterprise Architect, with twenty-one years of

experience serving clients both in the private and public sectors. I am the principal of

Professional Edge LLC, a San Jose-based organization providing technology and IT consulting

. for private businesses and the pub lie sector. I have specific and relevant experience in building

and maintaining organizational IT systems, enterprise architecture, network administration,

systems administration, and database administration.

5. As specifically relevant to the instant matter, I have had over 19 years of

experience in designing and architectiog enterprise solution platforms, using multi-tier

architectures to improve uptime, capacity and security. I am also experienced in providing full

root cause analysis (that is, diagnostic tracing, process, threading, memory dump analysis, and

code review) relating to enterprise IT problems and failures. lo effect, my professional

responsibilities are to explain to management, and 11\so to developers, what happened, how and

what needs to happen to fix failures, and how to verify the same failures will not happen again.

6. My professional experience includes the creation, maintenance and management

of the data systems for the Judicial Council of California. In this regard, I was specifically hired

to handle itHourcing of large court management systems that have data exchanges to multiple

justice partners, training resources, developing or finding ways to modify systems to be more

efficient and if possible cost Jess. lo the years I have served the Judicial Council as a service

2 DECL. OF MICHAEL MIYABARA-MCCASKEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTJON -- CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

·9

!l-, 10 ~ ~

11 ;.i

~ 12

" ~ 13 I'>..

<~ 14 ~ .... ,:,,: 1;j 15 ;.i ~ .... " Se 16

N~ 17 z< ""' ;.i

18 E-< 00 I'>..

!;ii 19 ,:,,: ;.i 20 .... ""' ;.i

21 00

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

provider, I have,analyzed, enhanced, profiled, migrated, or maintained dozens of systems

originally created by various State contractors. My primary role as an Architect is to understand

these systems completely, and to make sure that management is fully aware of any implications

of planned upgrades, migrations or enhancements to.existing systems, Further, my

responsibilities with the Judicial Council require me to determine and direct teams of IT

resources such as developers, quality assurance/testers, business analysts, systems, network or

database administrators, on how to ha.ndle production issues, where others have been unable to

diagnose, and explain the cause of failures.

7, Also, as a part of my work for the Judicial Council; I work with many Justice ·

Paitners systems, and as such, I hold a Level 4 Criminal Justice Information System (CTIS)

Security and Awareness certification, and I am experienced with criminal data systems and the

handling of law enforcement data.

8. A full set of my credentials, education and experience in this field is set forth in

my resume, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SCOPE OF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

9. I have been specifically asked to review, and to provide an opinion, as to the

likely cause, source or reason for the inability of the plaintiffs, and others who may be similarly

situated, to coru1ect to and submit infot·mation to tl1e California Department of Justice's firearms

re~istration system (California Firearms Application Reporting System, or "CFARS") for

purpose of registering bullet button assault weapons pursuant to Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(l). It is

my understanding that the statutory mandate to create an internet registration system comes from

section 30900(b)(2), which states: "Registrations shall be submitted electronically via the

Internet. utilizing a public-facing application made available by the department."

10. However, when creating this "public-facing application," the DOJ did not create

fill independent on-line registration system, but rather, elected to make an "enhancement" to its·

already-existing and maintained CFARS web application which included, inter alia: firearm

3 ---·----~--------- ·------------------1

DECL. OF MICHAEL MIY ABARA,MCCASKEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION "" CASE NO. 190350


l

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

d 10

11 [:l ..,: 12 (;!)

~ 13

~~ 14 ~,..:i i:;: ~ 15 ~~ (;!) OJ 16 El e N :§ 17 z< -"' 18 ti) ~

,-1 19 i:;:

"' 20 ,..;i -"' 00 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

registrations, ·ownership reports, transfer reports, serial number applications, and other firearms

related data. (See portal at https://cfars.cloj.ca.gov.) This "enhancement'' to an alread:y-existing

system was specifically requested "[t]o support a new type of firearms registration in response to

a recently enacted legislation." (An undated record obtained through the Public Records Act

entitled "Unanticipated Tasks Work Authorization" describing the scope and manner in which

the DOJ sought to create the firearms registration process by 12/31/17 is attached hereto as

Exhibit B.)

11. To further the scope of this study, I specifically reviewed and relied upon the

following:

• The Verified First Amended Complaint and attached exhibits;

• The declarations of plaintiffs in support of the motion for preliminary injunction,

describing their efforts and difficulty with attempting to register bullet button

assault weapons, and including the photographic exhibits attached, and .the video

clips that are referenced and linked therein;

• A response to a Public Records Act Request dated July 9, 2018; and

• Web Browser error codes and their meanings from various software vendors.

12. Having reviewed these materials, l am able to provide the following opinions:

First, it is very clear that the connection issues that were. being experienced by the plaintiffs and

others across the state, were caused by either the DOJ's CFARS servers being overloaded and/or.

possibly by one of the State of California datacenters itself being unavailable due to network

routing or overload issues. As shown in multiple screen shots from the plaintiffs, users were not

presented a local browser errors such as "No Internet Connection," but instead we see very

specific errors from the various browsers being shown saying, "Can't reach this page"

(cfars.doj.ca.gov) or "This site can't be reached" (cfars.doj.ca.gov). These vety specific errors

by browsers from various software vendors mean the browser was able to diagnose that the

Internet was available, but the specific website (cfars.doj.ca.gov) was not responding in a timely

fashion, or routing to the CFARS server was unavailable due to network hardware or software

4 DECL. OF MICHAEL MJYABARA-MCCASKEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION·· CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ...:i ..:I

11 "1

~ 12 c.!)

~ 13 "" <~ 14 ~ >-< «~ 15 ~ ~~ ~a 16 ... 0 N;:: 17 z~ ... "1 18 ~ "" 19 ~ « "1 20 "" ... "1 00 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

failures at the State of California Datacenter where the CFARS servers are located.

13. Next, it is also very clear ilia! the design of the enhancement to the CFARS

system that added the ability allowing these "bullet button assault weapons" to be registered was

flawed, in that it was built on an existing system which already served other purposes, but

without adequate quality assurance testing or profiling allowing for proper sizing of CF ARS

resources. In a Software Development Lifecycle Management (SDLC) activity such as

enhancing an existing system, code is developed as an "add on," also additional tables, indexes,

stored procedures, etc. would likely be added to a separate system called a database, used to store

the data set and/or provide configuration or reference data to the new code "add on." This

enhancement "add on" would follow a normal cycle of development, unit test, system or

functional test, and possibly regression test, it would eventually lead to user acceptance testing,

each phase being done by a combination of either DOJ employees or contractors to simulate the

end to end process of registering "bullet button assault weapons." But the most critical of these

tests should happen at the very ettd of the SDLC enhancement prncess, and that is load or stress

test, this type of testing answers the question of how many or how much more resources does the

"add on" need to function reliably when being used by the expected number of users using the

newly enhanced CFARS. Again, the CFARS was an existing system that already serves many

other purposes. For example, CF ARS already hosts a subset of data called California Reporting

Information System (CRIS). The CRIS database alone already includes:

• Firearm. Ownership Report

• New Resident Report of Firearm Ownership

• Collector In-State Acquisition of Curio or Relic Long Gun Report

• Curio or Relic Firearm Report

• Report of Operation of Law

• Report oflntra-Familial Firearm Transaction; and

• L'lw Enforcement Gun Release Application

(See screenshot of CRIS reporting forms, attached hereto as Exhibit C.) Thus, tci create ar1 "add

5 DECL. OF MICHAEL MIY ABARA-MCCASKEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION -- CASE NO. 190350


es ...:l ~

~ c.'l ~

i ~~ ~ ,_;i i:c: 1;j

~~ 1£ E - 0

~~ ·-Jail

~ ...i i:c: ~

i:l ~ 00

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

on" with an entirely new data set, involving the submission of thousands of applications and

photographs to accompany them, the CFARS enhat1cement allowing "bullet button assault

weapons" to be registered absolutely also would require "Load or Stress Testing" to verify that

the new enhancement itself is stable when large numbers of users use it at the same time, and

that it does not create instability or compromise existing functionality that CF ARS was already

serving. And while it is possible that the Department of Justice or its contractors did do these

extra types of tests, the evidence I've seen says they were not done, or not done correctly. For

example, in detailed review of video footage, it is very clear that DOJ added only a few new

pages to the CFARS system, they were added to existing pull down menus, and once the user

was on the new pages allowing the "bullet button assault weapons" to be registered, we can see

whole sections of the screens redraw upon various "clicks" or "pull down menu selections,"

which implies these new pages loaded large amounts of referenced data, configuration and code

into tl1ese few pages. In other words, large amounts of CF ARS server RAM memory were used

to load these pages, each time a user logged in. Based on .the screenshots from plaintiff Jahrnus,

for example, we can see direct evidence that the system was not able to load aJI the data in all

cases, the error "When undefined is entered 'Residence Street Address' is required" - there is no

possible way a user can select'or enter "w1defined" they must select something from a pull down

menu, or click on something on tlie registration form, and leaving something blank is not

"undefined.'' The term "undefined" is a common Java code-based error that occurs when the

Java application server is unable to load data referenced from a remote source. This implies the

CFARS application servers running this new enhancement allowing the "bullet button assault

weapons" to be registered, did not go through.proper load or stress testing to see how much

server RAM memory, or how many remote connections would be needed during times when the

expected number of users were on the system.

14. The "invalid character address" error experienced by some, if not many, also

demonstrates inadequate memory/resources. The fact tl1at multiple different users, plaintiffs

Gallinger, Jahraus, and. Prince all experienced times when their address became invalid, is also a

6 .~-=n-=E-=cC""L.-O~FCCMJ~C~HAEc-c----=L~tv...,11,CY~A-=B-ARA~-,tv,-,c!CCASKEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOrTON FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION,_ CASE NO. 190350


~ ,...;i

~ C,

~ ~] ~ {;j ;j ~ C, .. J>'I E! >-< 0

N~ ~ i:l "' P.. ~ ~ J>'I =l J>'I

a'.l

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1.1

12

13

14

15

16

·17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

telltale sign that the enhancement to CF ARS allowing the "bullet button assault weapons" to be

registered was flawed. In the specific case of plaintiff Prince, we note. that he was on the system

for 4 hours and was able to register half of the firearms he was trying to register b\1t then· the

system started reporting errors saying his street address was invalid, yet it was valid for the first

several of the firearms he was able to register but then suddenly in the midst of the nehl:

registration his address became invalid. (Prince Deel., 16.) This again implies that the CFARS

system with its enhancement allowing the "bullet button assault weapons" to be registered had

not been load- or stress-tested, and that erratic behavior was happening on the CFARS server

causing the system not to be able to know if"Avenue" or "Street" or "Court" or "Way" were

valid characters. This is, again, a classic example of a Java Application Server that has run out

of memory, or is unable to cormect to a remote or third'party system to load reference data, and

can now no longer validate the user data form submission because the code thinks that only the

value of "undefined" is valid.

15. Finally, it's also very clear that the CFARS servers were both drastically

undersized for network bandwidth speeds required and were also potentially failing and someone

or something was restarting services. Reviewing detailed review of video footage from Gilardy,

we clearly see a time line.from 10:54 p.m., he goes from the "This site can't be reached" error, to

trying several times with his browser, and following best practices by clearing his browser

cookies and browser cache, he eventually gets a CFARS login page. (Gllardy Deel., 112;

htti;!)/bit.lv/Gilardy Video 00 I.) He logs in, the system appears very responsive, until he starts

uploading a digital photograph that 3.4MB in size, which is one of the itemsrequired for his

firearm registration, and the video footage clearly shows that at 11 :05 p.m. the upload finishes,

(at around 42kbps per second, or slower than a 56kbps modem from the 1990s), but he's

immediately redirected back to the login page, with an error from the CFARS scryer stating

"Your session has timed out" (video at 05:3 8:04), so the CFARS server issued a Session Timeou

in 11 minutes. Most Java code applications default to session of20 to 60 minutes. Even if the

system was configured, for some reason, for a I 0-minute session timeout, and therefore this is by


MOTfON FOR PRELllvl. INJUNCTION •• CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

el 10

...:l II ~ < 12 C.? "" i! 13

~~ 14

i:,:: ";J 15 eii ~e 16 -o N t:: 17 z<: -~ 18

~ 19 i,:

"" 20 ..l -.o'I 21 [Fl

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

design, the upload speed is so slow that it would not .be possible to upload all the required images

without causing a Session Timeout. So regardless if this was caused when a system

administrator manually restarted, or an automated process restarted the system - either of which

would cause a Session Timeout (sometimes termed a "Kick Out" because the user losses all data

and must start again from the beginning), or if by design this had a 10 minute session timeout but

due to the DOJ incorrectly, or unknowingly didn't size available network bandwidth correctly fo

peak times - it would not be possible for users to follow the law as each and everyone would

instead get a Session Timeout.

16. Supporting these opinions is the commonality of many of the problems that were

being experienced, apparently across the state. For example, some individuals reported that they

were having trouble getting onto the CF ARS registration system at all. (See Sharp Deel., 17;

Ajirogi Deel., 116-7; Prince Deel., 16; and Kuehl Deel., 16.) In the case of plaintiffs Ajirogi

and Kuehl, they reported that they were being prevented from even reaching tlie website entirely,

or could not access the assault weapon registration form that was a feature on the CF ARS web·

site. Other individuals got as far as being able to submit information, but the system would

"time out" (i.e., become unresponsive) upon attempting to upload the four pictures that the DOJ

·. was requiring as a part of the registration process. (See Sharp Deel., 16; Gilardy Deel., 1[1[ 8-9

(and video referenced above); Feltman Deel., ii 6 (and see; http:llbit. ly/Feltman_ Video _00 I). It

was common for others to receive "invalid character address" type errors when attempting to

s,,bmit the.ir home address information, which caused them to be unable to proceed further with

those registrations. (See Prince Deel., 16 and Exhibit A; Jahraus Deel., 16 and Exhibit A.)

17. Finally, given that these errors were server-side errors ( on the part of CFARS), it

explains why users following the "Troubleshooting Tips" shown on the DOJ Bureau of Firearms

Website (attached as Exhibit D), for many, including plaintiffs, was futile. (See Shill'p Deel., 1

8; Gilardy Deel., 19; Feltman Deel.,, 7; Jahraus Deel., 118; Gallinger Deel., 15.)

II

II


MOTION FOR PREL!M. INJLJNCT!ON -- CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i:i,., 10 ,..;i ,..;i

l L fail E--<( 12

" l"1 ,J · 13 ""' ~~ 14 o?j ..J Ai ... I 5 '-l ~ ..J ~ 0c 16 i:.:i ...

N~ 17 z< -i:.:i. 18 r' "' ""' 19 i:.;i ll: i:.:i 20 ,J

'"" ~ 21 er,

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SUMMARY OPINION

18. Therefore, I conclude, with a reasonable degree of certainty, based upon my

training, experience and knowledge of the field, that the problems that were being experienced

co11necti11g to or the ability to fully use the CFARS system, as reported by plaintiffs and others,.

was due to inadequate CFARS system resources such as availuble memory, or available external

or third party conneetions that CFARS application servers depended upon for referenced data,

and/or inadequate network bru1dwidth or network routing problems to the CFARS servers.

Additionally, it appears the enhancements to the existing CFARS al'chitecture did not include

proper toad or stress testing. Finally, the fact that several users had been trying to register for

many hours, days or in a few cases weeks, and were receiving some or all of errors mentioned

previously,.means the DOJ/CFARS or their hired production support vendors were responsible

these problems, and in no possible way were any of these issues clue to any known fault of the

plaintitl:~ 01· other members of the public attempting to submit registrations in a timely manner.

l declare under penalty of pm:iury that the foregoing is true and correct. . ,...-....

I /

/ Dated: August I. 0, 2018

V

9 ---··----·------·· DECL. OF MICHAEL MIYABARA-MCCASl(EY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTlON FOR PRELJM. INJUNCTION -- CASE NO. l lJD350


EXHIBIT A


Michael D. Miyabara-McCaskey 2087 Coastland Avenue San Jose, CA 95125-2606 http://www.professionaledgellc.com

PROFJLE

Mobile: (408) 504-9014 [email protected]

• Senior IT Systems/Operations Architect, with twenty one years of experience serving clients ranging from the smallest startup to the largest Fortune 500 corporations. Primary duties include determine best ROI for planned SDLC changes, work to facilitate integration between major software vendors packages, and deliver systems that provide the highest levels of service and resilience with the lowest operational direct or incurred costs.

• Outstanding communication skllls, tailored to audiences ranging from Senior Executives to individual contributors such as Java/C++ Developers, QA testers, DBAs, and Systems Administrators.

• Highly proficient in all aspects of Software Development Life Cycle ( SDLC ); including capacity planning, system sizing/scaling, redundancy, high availability, and disaster recovery planning.

• Deep skills/experience with Integration/troubleshooting a broad range of enterprise applications, including web, J2EE, mlddleware, enterprise/ERP, CRM, SFA, and groupware applications.

• Served Deloitte Consulllng and its clients with distinction for over 6 years. Recognized by Deloitte leadership as the "Go-to guy" for all critical customer-facing Issues.

QUALIFICATIONS • 19+ years designing and architecting enterprise solution platforms, using multi-tier architectures to improve

uptime, capacity and security. Responsibilities have included requirements analysis with stakeholders, determining Integration points, planning for system scaling, and establishment of processes/revision controls.

• 17+ years working hands-on with numerous Enterprise tools/solutions such as Weblogic, Webmelhods, Adobe, Autonomy, and Oracle databases. Capabilities include full root cause analysis (diagnostic tracing, process, threading, memory dump analysis, code review, etc) plus tailoring enterprise monitoring to watch critical components/integration points.

• 23+ years as systems administrator of numerous platforms, including Unix/Linux (RHEL, HPUX, Solarls, SunOS, AIX) and Microsoft (NT, 2000, 2003, 2008) operating systems.

• 21+ years managing Information technology projects, Including milestone planning, workload balancing, effort estimation, cost management, team building, and resource coordination.

• 13+ years of network administration experience, including secure network design ( layered security), setup, troubleshooting, and monitoring of routers, firewalls, managed switches, load balancers, and kvm/serial consoles.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Dumtion: Feb 2011 - Present Client: Judicial Council of CA- San Francisco, CA Role: Enterprise Architect for Operations, CCMS V3 - JCC IT. (contracted by Ziba Group)

·• Enterprise Architect hired to manage current operations relating to code development ( source-code, unit, bundle, integration, etc. ) - as well as deployment vendors responsible for Go-Live production deployments.

• Additional tasks include gathering requirements for various internal departments; security, data-exchanges, source-code management, etc. and making sure the appropriate outsourced vendor or internal division is able to accommodate the details of each request.

• Recognized by both Senior Management and the Director of Information Systems Division - as being the only person able to properly identify and explain to outsourced vendors where to look to fix and resolve ongoing Production issues that has been plaguing users for months ( multiple vendors had already spent hundreds of man hours • Lmable to even identify the Issues ).

• Ongoing audits of all systems I software/ network design I Interaction points of software; producing numerous proposals or work orders that have consistently reduced operational costs each year with vast Improvements in ROI; keeping all current SLAs and functional and non-functional requirements the same.


Dumtion: Aug 2005 - May 2011 Client: Applied Biosystems - Foster City, CA Role: Lead Systems Administrator, Global eBusiness Portal project (contracted by Deloitte Cohsulting) · • Lead administrator for Portal implementation and ongoing support operations, which combined represent over

$30 Million worth of work for Deloitte Consulting.

• Originally hired to identify/solve chronic performance issues on t11e Portal's HP PA-RISC Superdomes, which included Apache, BEA WebLogic, Verity, and WebMethods servers. Successfully tuned the system to allow for the successful launch of the R1 .0 Portal In 2005, to the extent Ulat no additional tuning was needed until 2007.

• Designed capacity planning algorithms - allowing for proper allocation and usage of PA-RISC hardware and BEA clustered software packages for the intended 3 year lifespan of the R 1.0 Portal Project.

• Led security task-force for penetration testing; threat evaluation, and implemented fixes for all software packages. Liaison to development teams to fix functional (coding) issues as they related to security concerns.

• Created a Zero downtime method of code/configuration/data deployment, thus allowing the Portal operations team to apply patches or major releases with no downtime to the end user and with full rollback capability.

• Trained support teams. Reviewed and updated system documentation. Worked as bridge between development and environment teams, creating consistent versioning schemes for all releases.

• Wrote custom monitoring tools with complex logic flows to alert based upon proactive predictive failure points, thus allowing support resources to respond before customer experience was impacted.

• Led design, planning, and execution of a six-month complete platform conversion and hosting migration project. Net result was a 70% reduction in hosting and maintenance fees, while at the same time significantly increasing system performance. Scope of work Included new hardware sizing and selection, Identification of software updates, vendor Interaction for major upgrade solutions, and environment build-out.

Duration: Mtty 2001-Jul 2005 Client: Agilent Technologies - Santa Clara, CA Role: Senior IT Systems Architect, Global Agilent.com eBusiness Platform • Designed and implemented a WAN real-time "always on" Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) solution, providing

Agilent customers near-100% uptime in over 100 countries worldwide.

• Re-designed production processes to allow for zero downtime deployments with rollback capability, without purchasing any additional 1,ardware or software. . .

• Created a custom monitoring/notification "Healthcheck" solution, which continuously diagnosed all hosts, ports, daemons, services, listeners, etc. for issues and displayed results in a non-technical green/yellow/red style of dashboard. ·

• Named lead for task force to solve issues of performance with the R2.0 release of Agilent.com. Identified Issues, created test cases, and tuned various packages resulting in a 60% increase In speed.

• Created, trained, and managed offshore outsourced infrastructure team in India, greatly improving cost effectiveness for both Agilent and Deloitte Functional Testing activities.

• Enhanced system configuration tool to handle -15,000 configuration files,. spanning 67 hosts (PA·RISC/x86), 5 environments, and 4 software vendors (Oracle, Broadvislon, Sun and Entrust)· with full version control using CVS.

Duration: Dec 2000-Apr 2001 Client: Hubstorm(Velosel)- Mountain View, CA Role: Senior IT Systems Administrator/ IT Manager

• Hired to prepare the company infrastructure for expansion from startup to a fully functional medium sized company.

• Developed long-term strategies for Windows Server + Exchange. Stabilized Infrastructure by de-coupling development processes from operations needs. Standardized computing and phone needs for all employees.

• Redesigned network with NATIONS zones and site-to-site VPNs, allowing proper interoperability of Linux, Solaris, and Windows from the Corporate LAN to a remote datacenier, including secure remote administration.

• Helped create the next generation of software using Apache, PERL, Open SSL, and Tomcat. Then deployed a zero downtime infrastructure using Network Appliance Filer (5.2.5R2) and Foundry Serverlron load balancers.

• Managed servers for both internal operations and External B2B customers, including x86/Sun, MS NT4, MS 2000, Linux 2.x, and Solaris 7.x, with Oracle 81, Apacl1e, Perl (dbl, moclperl), OpenSSL, and DNS (bind).


Duratio11: August 1999 - November 2000 Client: LinkAbility - Pacifica, CA Role: CTO of Silicon Valley startup - Creating B2B/B2C/C2C commerce search engine • Designed a system for customers to search and find a desired product, service, or service provider from within a

unified portal system.

• Areas of focus Included both backend integration to very large disparate database systems (using PostgreSQL), as well as front"end presentation using Windows IISIASP

Duration: July 1997 .-July 1999 Client: SensArray (KLA Tencor)-Santa Clara, CA Role: Information Systems Administrator / Manager • Hired to prepare the company for projected 50% growth.

·' Updated entire company to latest Microsoft groupware system - Including Exchange 5.x and RightFAX (fax to/from email via lnterTel PBX). Implemented proper disaster recovery (off-site backups, plans, etc.)

• Managed data conversion process from Mac AUX custom accounting packages to standard Oracle Enterprise Apps (ERP). Later integrated self serve HR system - using Microsoft IIS, ASP and Access.

• Migrated to Y2K compliant, redundant servers with Windows NT 4, allowing simplified procedures for Engineering and Manufacturing using an Intranet web system for product line automation and revision control.

• Built sales system Implementing a custom Sales Forecast method, using Gold mine 4.x (SFA) with dBase IV. Secured sales satellite offices over secure Cisco and Ascend routers/firewalls using site-to-site VPN.

Duration: April 1994 -May 1997 Role: Information Systems Engineer

Client: Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)- Palo Alto, CA

• Directed project migrating data/applications from Xerox proprietary systems to Microsoft platforms, created documentation, brown-bag lunch talks, and helped to create user communities to increase user feedback.

• Key participant creating PC Support Business - included training, vendor contracts, inventory & repair tracking, networks, printing, servers, and disaster recovery/backup for a 1500+ workstation LAN.

RELEVANT SKILLS • Application Administration

o Appservers (Weblogic, Adobe Central SLlite, Adobe Coldfusion, WebMethods, MS Exchange, Autonomy IDOL, Verity, Broadvislon, Comergent, LDAP Sun Directory, Siteminder, Tomcat, JBoss)

o Databases (Oracle 81,91, 1 Og, 11g, 12c, MySQL 415, PostgreSQL 7, MS SQL 2005, MS Access, dBase Ill/IV) o Tools/Others (PL-SQL, ERWin, VBS, Perl, UBI, PHP, HTML, CSS, ASP, Parallels Hsphere, Cpanel,

Mercury Suite - Test-Director, LoadRunner, Quality Center, Performance Center, Quick Test Pro (QTP), LDAP, Sun One, I Planet, Apache, Crystal Reports/Business Objects), Oracle AWR/ADDM reports.

• Systems Administration o Highly experienced in dealing with issues such as interoperability, parallel authentication structures, and

application standardization (directories, ports, mounts, naming, etc.). o Linux/UNIX (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3/4/5/6, HPUX, Solaris, Gentoo, SunOS, AIX, various Linux), bind,

YP, nfs, lpr, x windows, samba, apacl1e, lplanet, cvs, tomcat, epic, tar, gzip, cron, openssl, openssh, and Isolation management for custom source configL1rations.) Shell scripting (sh, ksh, bash)

o WINDOWS (NT/2000/2003/2008), dns, wins, iis, ftp, veritas, batch scripting (bat) w/at scheduling. o POP3/IMAP/SMTP (sendmail, postfix, qmail), FTP, Telnet, RAID (sw or hw) o SAN (NetApp Filer/EMC), VNC, RDC, KVM/Serial Console (Raritan/Belkin), PBX (Fujitsu, lnterTel)

• Network Administration o Routers/ Firewalls (T1/DSL/ISDN/2way-LEOSAT, Cisco Pix, Juniper Netscreen, Ascend, AWS) o Switches, Proxies, Load-balancers, Virtual Private Cloud (Cisco, Dell, Foundry Serverlron, Cisco CSS, FS

BiglP, Bluecoat, AWS) o Secure network design SSL, SSH, SCP, VPN, IP or protocol filtering, NAT, and Cloud (VPC).

• Desktop Applications

o MS Office, MS Project, MS Visio, Thunderbird, MS Outlook, Eudora, Goldmine, Java, Adobe Suite -Acrobat, Photoshop, lllustrator, Premier, Frontpage, Pagemill, MS Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Subversion, XML Spy, Oracle client tools -WebLogic Workshop, Eclipse, DB Administration.


RECOGNITION .• Senior Management and Director level recognition in response to identification of on-going production system

problems that had been intem1pting hundreds of users several times per week - causing thousands of hours of lost work - for the CCMS V3 project-Administration Of the Courts.

• Awarded cash bonus in recognition of leadership provided for the Applied Biosystems eBusiness Portal replatforming project.

• "Michael is the most well-rounded, technically savvy systems administrator I have ever worked with In my 20+ year career. Plain and simple there is no problem I have thrown at him that he can't solve. He Is clearly THE trusted adviser to both me and my clients." --Dave Kusmlk, Director, Deloitte Consulting

• "The one person we knew we needed for a successful project launch was Michael."

EDUCATION • DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA

AA Liberal Arts, 1994

• Additional Training/Certifications

Oracle DB Administration (Oracle Corp) 1999

Oracle SQL (Oracle Corp) 1999

HR Vantage Admin (Spectrum Soft) 1998

MS Access I, II, Ill (lnfoTech) 1997

Windows Server & 9x (Unitek Training) 1996

MS Visual Basic (UCSC Extension) 1995

-·Mike Brinker, Principal, Deloitte Consulting

NetWare Enterprise Adm In (Wave Tech) 1995

NetWare Admin & Support (Wave Tech) 1993

NetWare Data Comm. (Wave Tech) 1993

Apple Computer/Printer HW (Apple) 1993

Computer & Digital Malnt. (CCOC) 1989

Stand and Deliver Program (Temenos) 1995


EXHIBITB


Unanticipated Tasks \Nork Authortzallon

erofect Jltla

161T-0841 BOF Apps Upgrnde

§tatement of Pyrpase

CFARS needs to be enhanced 10 aupPQrt a new type of firearm reglslralion In response to a recently enacted leglslatlan. The changes required to be made to CFARS Is significant and oul of the·sC(lpe of the oiiglnally planned wor11.

This work authorl~atlon replaces the previous work aulhorlzatlon approved In Augusl 201S.

Create a new nrearms registration process In CFARS.

Material§ to be geveloped t>Y the CoQtractoc @od deDyered tq the OoJ ·

Java and PU6QL source coda for the CFARS enhancement.

Mal@rlal§ to be developed by the DOJ and dallyarad to Iha cqnlraclor

No action required by Iha DOJ.

Scbedule Dalas

Start Date: 10/01/201S

.§!!.i!!)atad Laboe Heyes 429

Qwg!Qr Personnel~ Mano) Gopalal<rlshnan

Coowlellon Crlteri1'J

Labor Rm~ $ 130.0Q

CompJeUon Oata: 12/31/2017

gslimatect Tota\ Cost $65770.00

Job Qlassificatton/Sklll Lav>!J Sr. lech Lead

CFARS ent1ancement completad and deployed to production by 1/1/2017,

Approval

Contraot<>r Project Manager Dale_, ___ _

D\'.)J Management Date _____ _


EXHIBIT C


CRIS Reporting Forms

Fiream1 Ownarsh)p Report

New Resident Raport of Firearm owoe,shlp

Collector ln•Stat& Ar.qulsltlon of Curio or Rolle long Gun Report

Curh:t or RaUc t=!reatm Report

Report of Operation of Lnw

Repo1l of ln(ra .. famlllel Firearm Ttar,saollon

Law ~'nfurcemant Gun RalmtsH Applloallon

~) Halp ·M~ ldar1Ufy Whll;h Raporl l Noed

Assistance Center

CFARS Con!aci" Us

Report an rs.sire

Ac!dilluna! HeJp

-- ···--·-·· ·-- --··------·- ---· ..... ·•···• ....•..•. .., .. """' .................. -···-···------------··--· .. ·-·----·--·-·----' CFARS Home ) CRIS Homo

Logged In user:

CRIS Homa Page

The CR(S Home PaQe Is used to pmsent Important system messages, when necessary1 as well ~s provide

Lisers a stal'Ung po!nt for system na\l!gatlon.

lo proceed, please satect an option from one of the llnk.,a avalfable.


EXHIDITD


_Sta.tea/California Department a/justice

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General

Search

Translate Website I Traducir Sitlo Web

Bullet Button Assault Weapon Home / Firearms / Bullet Button Assault Weapon

California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS)

The Depa rtm entl!§\pi;ffsi6JIY/~~~\/gJ'f§[pg~;'.tfig8',yqlQ!J\i;lf::Q,~'.$ (~ ;~t!;~'rp~tj/jg;tq,

.;f.~~1it~r:ltti~ii}~.~~§9Jt':~;g~;k17iri~}

If you are experiencing difficulty processing an application in CFARS, please try the

trouble shooting options listed below.

• Clear your browser history. This can be done by selecting Shift+ Ctrl + Delete

on your keyboard. Be sure to clear your Cache, Cookies and Form & Search

History.

• Use a different web browser such as, Internet Explorer or Mozilla FireFox.

Mozilla FireFox is the preferred web browser to process an application in


CFARS.

• Change computers and/or networks (WiFi, cellular network, etc.)

• If you are still unable to submit your registration, you may try accessing the

system at a later time.

REMINDER: The last day to submit a bullet button assault weapon registration is

Saturday, June 30, 2018. The Customer Support Center is available to assist the

public between the hours of 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday only. However,

staff will be available to assist with bullet button assault weapon registrations and

assault weapon serial number requests via email communication on Saturday,

June 30, 2018 until 11 :59:59 pm by contacting [email protected].

REMINDER: ASSAULT WEAPON REGISTRATION

ENDS AT 11:59:59 P.M. ON JUNE 30, 2018.

All applications for assault weapon registration must be submitted by this

deadline. No applications will be accepted thereafter (see Penal Code section

30900(b)(1) and California Code of Regulations, title 11, division 5, chapter 39,

section 5469).

NOTE: If you are in lawful possession of a bullet button assault weapon that is a

Firearm Manufactured By Unlicensed Subject (FM BUS), you must obtain a DOJ

issued serial number by completing form BOF 1008 and emailing it to

[email protected]. The serial number issuance process is separate

from the assault weapon registration process and must be completed before the

assault weapon registration application will be accepted by DOJ.

Do I need to register my bullet button firearm?


· Assembly 81111135 and Senate Bill 880 require that any person who, from January 1,

2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does

· not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Penal Code section 30515, including those

weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the

firearm with the use of a tool (commonly referred to as a bullet-button) must register

the firearm before January 1, 2018. However, Assembly Bill 103 has since extended the

registration period from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2018.

Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 also define the meaning of "fixed magazine" to

mean an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a

firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of

the firearm action.

This legislation closes the "bullet button" loop hole and categorizes "bullet button"

firearms as assault weapons. The adopted regulations for bullet button assault

weapon registration contains ·additional information on registration requirements.

What is considered an "assault weapon"?

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 (Stats. 2016, ch. 40) and Senate Bill 880 (Stats. 2016, ch.

48) effective January 1, 2017, the definition of"assault weapon" is revised to mean the

following:

RIFLES

a. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has

any one of the following:

I. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

weapon.

ii. A thumbhole stock.


iii. A folding or telescoping stock.

iv. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

v. A flash suppressor.

vi. A forward pistol grip.

b. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to

accept more than 10 rounds.

c. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

PISTOLS

a. A semiautomatic pistol that does n·ot have a fixed magazine but has any one of

the following:

i. A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward

handgrip, or silencer.

ii. A second handgrip.

iii. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel

that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer's

hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.

iv. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of

the pistol grip.

b. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept

more than 1 O rounds.

SHOTGUNS

a. A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock.

ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

b. A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

--


c. Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Do I need a DOJ Serial Number?

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 5474.2 a person in

possession of a Firearm Manufactured By Unlicensed Subject (FM BUS) must seek a

Department issued serial number prior to initiating the assault weapon registration

process .

. Applicants seeking a serial number shall complete a New Serial Number Application··

(BOF 1008) and submit it to tl1e Department per the instructions on the form. For

instructions on how to complete the application, refer to the New Serial Number Form

Instructions. For additional Information, please contact the Bureau of Firearms Assault

Weapon Registration Serial Number at: [email protected] .

. Where can I register my assault weapon?

All registrations must be submitted electronically, through the California Firearms

Application Reporting System (CFARS) at https://cfars.doj.ca.gov. The registration fee is

$15 per person (transaction). To submit your appllcation you will need:

• At least 4 photos of the firearm you intend to register (see sample photos)

o Close-up of the bullet button style magazine on the firearm.

o Stock to barrel (with the firearm lying horizontally on a flat surface).

o Left side of the receiver/frame.

o Right side of the receiver/frame.

• Proof of residency, if submitting a joint registration.

• Military permanent duty station orders indicating assignment within California, if

using a military ID to register. Active duty military spouse ID is not acceptable.


· A CFARS Assault Weapon Registration Public User Guide is available for information on

how to submit an assault weapon registration electronically.

Where can I find additional information about bullet button assault weapons?

Additional information can be found within the Bullet Button Assault Weapons

Frequently Asked Questions.

Additional Bureau of Firearms Links

1. California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS}

2. Frequently Asked Questions

3. Forms and Publications

4. Firearms Reporting & Law Enforcement Gun Release Application

5. Assault Weapons Identification Guide

6. California Firearms Laws Summary

7. Firearms Information for New California Residents

8. Contact Us

Bureau of Firearms

Firearms Home

California Firearms Laws Summary, pdf (revised 2016)

FAQs

Forms and Publications

Becoming a Firearm Dealer and/or Ammunition Vendor in California

1:irearm Safety Certificate Program, DOJ Certified Instructor Information and

Comparable Entities

Certificate of·Eligibillty Information and Application Process


Bullet Button Assault Weapon Information and Registration Process

Firearms Reporting & Law Enforcement Gun Release Application

Firearm Regulations/Rulemaking Activities

California Code of Regulations

Roster of Firearm Safety Devices Certified for Sale

Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale

Unique Serial Number Application (USNA) Process

Contact Us


STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

: ''' '' ., ' " ' ' ' .. --··- ..• ,.._ ..... ·- ·- ···-·--·-··" "'···- .... ""''•-••·--·--·--··-· ' ! Search ' ••••••o•.sn• ••- •••••-"·'·M "" •"••-"• ·•"'•"•"'"""",. ••• ""•••• ••-•• n •• •••••• •• •••• '" ''"'" '••-• ,,,,_,.,.,, ••• • ,n,, • ... < ""°'""'~"' ''" • ••••••••••'

WHO WEARE

About AG Xavier Becerra

History of the Office


Organization of the Offic~. '·

WHATWEDO ·, •• ,, .J

Public Safety

Opinions and Quo Warranto

Research

Children & Families

Civil Rights

Consumer Protection

Environment & Public Health

Tobacco Directory

OPEN GOVERNMENT

Ballot Initiatives

Conflicts of Interest

Criminal Justice Statistics

Meetings and Public Notices

Openjustice Initiative

Public Records

Publications

Regulations

Memorial

Agents Fallen In Hie Line of Duty

Vote

Register to Vote

WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON

21st Century Policing

Children's Rights

Consumer Protection and Economic Opportunity

Environmen\al Justice

Equality

Health Care

lmmigrntlon

OpenJustice


MEDIA

Consumer Alerts

Press Releases

Media Library

CAREERS

Getting a StoteJob

Examinations

Job Vacancies

Internships & Student Positions

Attorney General's Honors Program

Earl Warren Solicitor General Fellowship

Office of the Attorney General Acr.esslbllity Privacy Policy Conditions of Use Disclaimer ·

© 2018 DOJ


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10

11

~ 12

el 13 I><

~~ 14 ~ >-< i:,::~ 15 el E, " El 16

~~ 17

!:l 18 ·~

19 ~ i:,::

~ 20 ~

21 rr.,

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 Fax: (910) 672-7705


SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



Petitioners,

vs.

XA VIBR BECERRA, et al.,

Respondents.

I, George M. Lee, declare as follows:

Case No. 190350

DECLARATION OF GEORGE M. LEE IN SUPPORT OF.PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[CCP § 527]



1. I am an attorney at law, in good standing, duly licensed to practice law in this

state and appear beforeits courts. I am the attorney of record for plaintiffs/petitioners in the

above matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated .in this declaration, and if called as a

witness, could competently testify thereto.


preliminary iI\jtmction, made pursuant to Code of Civ. Pro. § 527.

1 DECL. OF GEORGE M. LEE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ~ ~ 11

~ 12

~ 13 ~

!l ~ 14 ~,-:i ~ '\; 15 f;"1 f!l ,-:i ii;' C, ~ 16 f;"1 .... .... 0 ;~ 17

~ 18 <I] J's

19 ~ ~ f;"1 20 ~ rJl 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. I represent institutional plaintiffs Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition,

Firearms Policy Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation, both in the instant matter, and

in other litigation matters in this state.

4. As a part ofmy representation of the institutional plaintiffs, I have been referred,

and have had many discussions with individuals seeking legal assistance and advice, who

experienced substantial problems getting their "bullet button assault weapons" registered

pursuant Pen. Code § 30900(b )(1 ), prior to the registration deadline of July l, 2018 ("Deadline")

imposed by§ 30680(c). Specifically, since June 30, 2018, I have had discussions with many

California citizens who had experienced technical problems while attempting to access or submit

firearms registration information using the DOJ Bureau of Firearms' system called the California

Firearms Application Reporting System ("CF ARS").

5. The statutory mandate to the DOJ to create an on-line registration system for

these newly-classified assault weapons is found at Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(2) ("Registrations shall

be submitted electronically via the Internet utilizing a public-facing application made available

by the department.") This lawsuit was filed to allow people a reasonable 01iportunity to comply

with section 30900(b)(2). Plaintiffs seek mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief with the

ultimate objective of allowing them (and many others) to register their firearms and continue to

remain citizens .in good standing.

6. From these numerous discussions l had with people al!' across the state since June

30, 2018, I found there to be many commonalities as to the specific problems they had

encountered with CFARS. In particular, many individuals (such as plaintiFEs Sharp, Ajirogi,

Prince and Kuehl) had trouble getting onto CFARS at all. (See Sharp Deel., ,r 7; Ajirogi Deel.,

ir,r 6-7; Prince Deel., ir 6; and Kuehl Deel., ,r 6.) In the case of Messrs. Ajirogi and Kuehl, they

were prevented from even reaching the website entirely, or could not access the assault weapon

registration form that was a feature on .the CFARS web site (before it was taken down on July 1,

2018). Other individuals got as far as being able to submit information, but the system would

"time out" (i.e., become unresponsive) upon atiempting to upload the four pictures that the DOJ

2 DECL. OF GEORGE M. um IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION J/OR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


l

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

d 10

11

~ 12

~ 13 ~

~~ 14 "I.I >-< = 1. 15 ~ e, c.:, e 16 f::1 Q

N~ 17 ~ J;-1

1.8 I 19

= ~ 20 J;-1

21 r:r,

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was requiring as a part of the registration process. (See Sharp Deel., ,r 6; Gilardy Deel., ,r,r 8-9

(and see: http://bit.ly/Gilardy _ Video_OO 1); Feltman Deel., ,r 6 (and see:

http://bit.ly/Fe1tman_ Video_00l). Other people received bizarre "invalid character address"

errors when attempting to submit their home address information, which caused them to be

unable to proceed further with those registrations. (See Prince Deel., ,r 6 and Exhibit A; Jahraus

Deel., ,r 6 and Exhibit A.)

7. These common problems had been experienced by many people I spoke with, and

not just limited to the plaintiffs herein. Many others I spoke with were unwilling or hesitant to

be named as plaintiffs in this case, many fearing retaliation and/or the threat of prosecution by

the DOJ for "illegally" possessing assault weapons after the Deadline, even though they

attempted to comply. Some were not willing to be plaintiffs in the case, but were willing to

submit declarations describing tl1eir experience. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the true and

correct declaration of Jordan Gallinger. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the true and correct

declaration of Richard Whittier.·

8. On information and belieJ; the DOJ's link lo the assault weapons registration form

(entitled: "Assault Weapon Registration Form (Assembly Bill 1135/Senate Bill 880)") was taken

down on July 1, 2018, after midnight. Pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code§§ 451 and 452, this Court is

requested to take judicial notice that July l, 2018 was a Sunday, and that June 30, 2018 fell on a

Saturday.

REQUEST FOR CLASS-WIDE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

9. As set forth in the plaintiffs' motion, injunctive relief is sought to prevent

enforcement of the assault weapons possession statutes, to wit: Penal Code§§ 30600 (insofar as

the statute would prohibit otherwise lawful transportation activities) and 30605, not just as to

plaintiffs themselves, or as to the institutional members, but as to the class of similarly-situated

individuals they represent. Specifically, and as alleged in plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

(FAC), such a class would consist of: all California citizens who are not otherwise prohibited or

3 DECL. OF GEORGE M. LEE TN SUl'PORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


·~ d ~ <5 ::l ~

!! i:,::~ ~ 00

....:i ~

~~ ~~ 1:1 "' ~ i:,:: !>al ....:i ,... !>al 00

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

exempt under the assault weapon registration laws, who lawfully and legally possessed firearms

that the State of California classified as "assault weapons" under Penal Code § 30515(a) that

must be registered as such pursuant to Penal Code sections 30680 and 30900(b), but who were

precluded from doing so due to the Defendants' actions and failures, including but not limited to

the inaccessibility, defects, and/or non-functionality of the DOJ's CFARS-based registration

system during the registration period ending at midnight on June 30, 2018. (FAC, ,i,i 22-23).

10. As the declarations of the plaintiffs, and other individuals (Exhibits A and B

hereto) show, there are common questions of fact that likely affect the rights, duties and

liabilities of many similarly-situated California residents who were unable to comply with the

registration requirement due to technical issues with the CFARS system. It is widely known that

a large number of people attempted to register in the· days and weeks leading up to the

registration deadline: To illustrate this, in response to a request for records under the Public

Records Act (PRA), the DOJ had indicated that as of February l, 2018, only five (5) months

before the Deadline, it had received 4,653 applications to register bullet button assault weapons

through CFARS. (A true and correct copy of the letter ofDep. Attorney General Robert D .

Wilson, dated February !, 2018 is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) However, in a further response

to information under the PRA, the DOJ revealed that it had received a total of 68,848

applications to register bullet button assault weapons through CFARS by the Deadline. (A true

and correct copy of the letter ofDep. Attorney General Robert D. Wilson, dated July 11, 2018 is

attached hereto as Exhibit D.) Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a sharp spike in

the number of bullet button assault weapon registrations was occurring in the weeks and days

leading up to the Deadline. This is further borne out by a warning on the DOJ Bureau of

Firearms website, which indicated that "[t]he Department is currently experiencing a high

volume of users attempting to register their assault weapons." (A true and correct copy of the

DOJ Bureau of Firearms notification and "Troubleshooting Tips" published on its website prior

to the Deadline is attached hereto as Exbibit E.)

11. If notice to the proposed class of affected individuals who may benefit from the

4 DECL. OF GEORGE M. LEE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

j 10

11

~ 12

~ 13 p.,

-< ~ 14 cl/j ~ i:,(~ 15 I"'!"' ....i iri' ~~ 16

N~ 17 'iS ~ 18 ,.,,

. p., r;,J. 19 i:,(

~ 20 I"'!

21 r:r.,

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

requested ittjunction becomes necessary, my institutional clients and my finn are well-situated to

provide outreach and notification regarding the existence, scope and duration of any preliminary

injimction. Specifically, the institutional plaintiffs are able to commimicate with and provide

notice to their thousands of California members and constituents who are or would be part of any

identifiable class of individuals for whose benefit this court may grant such relief. For example,

plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) already used its own resources to advocate for

education and outreach to help their members and the public know and understand their duties

under the new laws that would be enacted by Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135. (FAC, 1

55). Plaintiffs and I are further willing to work with other Second Amendment advocacy groups

(such as the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, and other

organizations) to provide notice and outreach regarding the scope of any injunctive relief. I am

an attorney with over 22 years of experience in San Francisco, handling civil litigation matters,

inciuding: complex civil matters, class-action and representative claims, and state and federal

civil rights litigation.

12. In addition to this ascertainable class of members specifically defined in

paragraph 9 above, there is also a well-defined and common community of interest in the

questions of law and fact affecting the parties to be represented. This is a matter of substantial

public importance, presenting the question of whether people should face potentially severe

criminal penalties when they attempted to but were deprived of their ability to comply with the

law due to the technical deficiencies of the DOJ' s registration system,

13. The scope of the preliminary injunctive relief requested would be limited in

duration, until this court adjudicates to finality the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, and in

particular, until such time as the court ~ay grant the plaintiffs mandamus, declaratory and

permanent injunctive relief to allow the class of similarly-situated individuals a reasonable

opportunity to comply with the registration requirement of Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(2).

14. For these reasons, plaintiffs are requesting preliminary iitjunctive relief; for

themselves, their members, and for the class of similarly-situated individuals.

5 DECL. OF GEORGE M. LEE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FORPRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


~ ~ <11 c.,

~ ~~ ~ >-< .,: t;; ~ ., tl §e N :ej ~< ~ CJ)

~ .,:

~ ~

Cl.l

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

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing·is true and correct.

Dated: August 10, 2018

6 DECL. OF GEORGE M. LEE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTJON FORPRELIM. JNJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


EXHIBIT A


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

es 10 ...:I 11 1:l ~ 12

~ 13 !! 14

i:cj~ 15

~i 16 /:!:I ... N~ 17 i!1 < ~ 18

.~ 19 J;,'"1

~ 20

~ 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 60 I Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: ( 415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE D1GUISEPPJ!: LAW .FIRM, P.C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 .. Fax: (910) 672-7705


SUPElUOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Petitioners,

vs.


Respondents.


Case No. 190350

DlCCLARA TION OF ,JoROAN GAl,LINGER IN

SU:l'PO.RT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION li'OR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINAll.Y JN:roNCTION

[CCP § 527]


DECLARATION OF JQRnA,N GALUN(}J~:B

I, Jordan Gallinger, declare us follows:·

1. I am Lill adult resident of the County of Los Angeles, California. I have personal

knowledge of the facts stated in tl1is declamti011, and if called as a witness, could competently

testify thereto.

· 2. This declaration is executed in support ofplaintiffo' motion for the issull!1ce of a

preliminary injunction, made pl!l'suant to Code of Civ. Pl"o. § 527.

1 DECL. OF JORDA!'(GALLINGER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR P.RECiM.TNiuNi':rroN

CASE NO. l 90350


,:i...

~ ~ C!I ::l @-,

~ j:c .. citl ~ ~ ';j ~

C!I :.l

~! ~ i:1 "' ""' ~

~·

rF.l

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

3. I am a lifelong resident of California. I am a law-abiding individual, aud I am not

prohibited from owning firearms.

4. Prior to January 1, 2017, I lawfully acquired and possessed three firearms,

equipped with bullet-button devices. It was my illtention to register these fireanns acqording to

the laws requiring registration of "lmllet button asslllllt weapons."

5. Starting sometime iu Me May 1018, I began making attempts to rnbmit the

assault weapons registration form on the DOJ's site in order to comply with the registration

requirement. I was able to cteate an account on the DOJ' s CFARS system, but after that, I was

unable to submit the regisll'ation forms they were requbfog. Specific'!lly, I would get various

error messages .informing me that I had included "invalid characters" fa the address, which

caused 111e to attempt many different variations on my home address information that was

required. I also found that the system would "time out" and then delete all of my information

once I attempted to.upload the four pictures that were being required for each firearm, deletiug

all of the form information I had filled out, and requiring me to start over. I made multiple

attempts to submit the information, using 3 or 4 different comp11ters, and 3 01· 4 different web

browsers, all lo no avail. I consider myself to be fairly tech-literate, and I definitely considered

this to be a systematic problem on the DOJ's side.

6. I made appmxhnately 10 attempts to submit the registration forms, starting in

May and continuing through June 2018, and in pruticular, the last two weeks of June. However,

and due to the failure of the DOJ's system, and the error messages,! was unable to register any

of the three firearms I intended to register prior to the statutory deadline.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is trne and col'fect.

Dated: 0'.3 4-16 W l'6 ·----

2 'DEct:· OF iORDAN GALLINGER IN SUPI,ORT OF PLAINi'JFj:.;s, MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


EXHIBITB


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ~ 11 l"1 !-I < 12 §

13 "4

~t 14 o)j~ ,:0: lt 15

§i 16

~! 17 ~ 18 t;; "4

19 ..,. ~ a 20

~ 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) Douglas A Applegate (SBN 142000) $);:'lUiJR EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 601 Mont$Ome,:y Sti:eet, Suite :woo !San F1:anc1sco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 979-0500 Falt: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiOuiseppa (SBN 2284.57) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW F'JRll:l, P,C, 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington, NC 28401 Pl1o»e: 9!0) 7l3-8804 Fax: 910) 672-7705

Attorneys for I'laintiffs and Petitioners

SUPERIOR COURT Ol.1' UlE Sl'ATE OF CALIBORN.i.A

FOR IBE COUNTY OF SHASTA

BARRY SHARP, et al.,

Petitioners,

VB.

XAVIER BECERRA, et <tl.,

Case No. 190350

DECLARATION OF Rl:CUhro> Wa:rrr.O.R IN SUl'PORT OF '.PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCT'ION

[CCl' § 527)


))ECLARATION OF RICHARD WHITr.IER

I, Richard Whittier, declare as follows:

l. I run an adult resident of the County of Rivernide, C..alifomia. I have pernonal

knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and if called as a wituess, cou1d competently

testify thereto.

2. This declaration is <>11:eouted io support of plaintiffs· motion for the issuance ofa

preliminary injoootion, :made pursuant to Code ofClv. Pro. § 527.

1 OB.CL. 01' RICHARD WHfl'flER IN SUPPORT OF PLAIN11l:'FS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


' I 8 ., I I "1 I ~ I I ~ ' I !al '

~,..:i

~-; ijf ~< "1 !;l ~ /:tl ; Cl.l

3. l = a lif:elongresident of California. l llm a law-abiding individual, mid I 11.m 11ot

2 prohibitetl from owning flreantis.

3 4. P~lor to January 1, 2017, I lawfully acquired and possessed a firearm, equipped

4 with a bullet-button device. It Wa& my intention to register this :firearm according to the laws

S · requ:iling 1·egist,;ation of ''bullet QUtton !lll~ault weaP'on~."

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

B

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2!

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. On June 30, 2018, l went online to fill out the Msault weapon registration form

that was being required by the DOJ. I spent a fuir amount of timsi filling out all of the required

information regarding the fl1'eann in question. However, each thne l went to upload the phOt¢$

that were being ,equil'ed, the wob~ite wo11ld texminate the form, imd sent me ba<ik to the

begill.tling, i-equit!ng rue to statt the proC<iss all over again, i.e., ftlling out all of the same

information. I attempted to tlo this sevetal time$, each time encouutei:iiig the smne problem. I

then called the provided telephone immber for the OOJ, but nobody answered. I also sent an

email, bnt the DOJ did not respond for days. Based upon thiu problem, l was not able to registe.r

the firearm before the statutory deadline.

6. On or about July 2, 2018, I culled the DOJFirearms B11rea11 and got hold of

somcono to tell them about 'the probkms l had encountm-ed. The D01 employee told me that I

should not have waited until the last day to register the firearm. I explained to her that l had

heard that many people had experienced problems registering on their web~ite, She tOld me in

response that the Department knew tlmt some web browsers. did not work with their applicatio11.

l said that based upon these problems, I was requesting that they allow me to register the firearm.

She told me that there was nothing they could lto because the form was not submitted in time.

She also acknowledged that I ww tryingto comply with the law, but told me that it was my fault

for waiting until the 'last day.

I declare tinder pem,Jty of perjury that the foregoing is tme ru:ul ra)rrec:t.

Dated; Z/ 6 j;g/' 2

DBCL. OF RICHARD WElTIIER IN SUl'l'Oll.T OF l?LAlN'.tlFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. lNJlJNCT!ON CA.SE NO. 190350


EXI-IIBIT C


..

X4 VIER BECERllA Attorney General

Brandon Combs 4212 N. Freeway Blvd., Suite 6 Sacramento, CA 95834

February 1, 2018

Re: Public Records Act Request received January 4. 2018

Dear Mr. Combs:

State of Califomia DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

1300 I STREET, SUITB 125 P.O. BOX 944255

SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550 · Public: (916) 445-9555

Facslmilo: (916) 227-0470

This Jetter is in response to your p\1blic records request in which you sought records pursuant to the Public Records Act ("PRA") as set forth in Government Code section 6250 et seq. Specifically, you requested the following information:

"Please provide me with a copy of the following records in existence that allow me and the · public to determine:

1. The number of applications for firearm registration as an "Assault Weapon" under Penal Code section 30900(b) that were submitted from July 31, 2017, to the present. In lieu of documents I will accept your calculation of the number of applications as a full response to this request.

2. The number of applications for firearm registration as an "Assault Weapon" under Penal Code section 30900(b) that have been approved from July 31, 2017, to the present In lieu of documents I will accept your calculation of the number of applications that have been approved as a full response to this request.

3. The number of applications for firearm registration as an "Assault Weapon" under Penal · Code section 30900(b) that have been denied/rejected from July 31, 2017, to the present. In lieu of documents I will accept your calculation of the number of applications that have been denied/rejected as a full response to this request .

.4. The number of applications for firearm registration as an "Assault Weapon" under Penal Code section 30900(b) submitted from July 31, 2017, to the present that are still being processed. In lieu of documents I will accept your calculation of the number of' applications still being processed as a full response to this request.


Brandon Combs February I, 2018 Page2

'

5. The average time it takes to review and make a determination on an "Assalllt Weapon" registration application under Penal Code section 30900(b) submitted from July 31, 2017, to the present. In liet1 of documents I will accept a list of all applications including their respective dates of submission and DOJ's determination of acceptance 01· denial as a foll response to this request.

6: Frnm January I, 2017, to the present, a copy of all daily, weekly, monthly, or other per.lodical reports about "Assault Weapon" registrations and applications under Penal Code section 30900(b ). "

Here are the responses to yom• requested information:

1. (4;i'i;$j:aJ?pl!c~Ho11~to register bullet button assault weapons were submitted for registration in California Firearms Applicatim1 Reporting System (CFARS).

2. 2,523 applications were apprnved in CFARS.

3. 200 applications were rejected ln CFARS.

4. 1,232 applications are still being processed by the Dcpmtment.

S. We cannot provide you with an estimate on the time it takes to review and make a determination on an assault weapon registration application because it varies greatly depending on the circumstances.

6. Please find enclosed the information you seek.

Enclosure

Sincerely,

~~--ROBERT D. WILSON Deputy Attorney General

For XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General


EXHIBITD


, ..

XAVIER BECERRA Attomey General

State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Brandon Combs 4212 N. Freeway Blvd,, Suite 6 ,Sacramento, CA 95834

July 11, ~018

Re: Public .Records Act Rel(\.l!l!lU®eived July 2, .2018

Dear Mr, Combs:

1300 I STREET, SUITE 125 P.O. BOX 9442S5

SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550 Public: (916) 445-9555

Faosbnlle: (916) 227-0470

This letter is in respoµse to your public records request in which you sought records pursuant to the Public Records Act ("PRA") as set forth in Govemtnent Code section 6250 et · seq. Specifically, you requested the following information:

"Please provide me with a copy of the following records in existence that 111low me and the public to determine:

I. The numbe1· ·of applications for fireami registration as an "Assault Weapon" under Penal Code section 30900(b) thu.t were submitl<:,d from July 31, 2017, to the present. In lieu of documents l will accept your calculation of the mm1b(?r of applications all a foll r!)Sponse to this request. · ·

2. The number of applications for firearm registration as an "Assault Weapon" wider Penal Code section 30900(b) that have been approved from July 31, 2017, to the present, In lieu of documents I will accept your calculation of the number of applications that have been appl'Oved as a foll response to this request.

3. The number of t1Jlplicatlo11s fot· fmm!'ln regmtmtion as an "Assault Weapon'.' under Penal • Code s,;ctlon 30900(b) that have been denied/rejected from July 31, 2017, to the present. In

lieu of docume11ts I will accept your c11lculatlon oflhe number of applications that have been denied/rejected as a full resporuie to this req,1est.

4. The number of applications for fil·einm registration as an ''Assault Weapon" under Penal Code section 30900(b) submitted from July 31, 2017, to the P.rescnt that.are still being processed. In lieu of documents I will accept your calculation of the numbei· of applications still being processed as a full response to 'this request.


Brandon Combs July 11, 2018 Page 2

5. The average time it takes to review and make a detennination on an "Assault Weapon" registl'ation application under Penal Code section 30900(b) submitted from July 31, 2017, to the present. In lieu of documents I will accept a list of all applications including their respective elates of submission and DOJ's determination of acceptance or denial as a full response to tWs request.

6. From January 1, 2017, to the present, a copy of all daily, weekly, monthly, or other periodical reports about "Assault Weapon" registrations and applications under Penal Code section 3 0900(b ). "

Here are the responses to your requested information:

I. ((iit,&4\fttpplicatltiii$lto register bullet button assault weapons were submitted for registration in the California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS).

2. 13,519 firearms were registered as of June 30, 20 l 8. An application that is being processed is not considered "registered." An assault weapon wbuld only be registered if the applicant meets ·an the firearm and background requirements and is approved by the Department.

3. 1,373 applications were rejected us ofJuly 11, 2018.

4. 52,443 applications are still being processed by the Department as of July 11, 2018.

5. We cannot provide you with an estimate on the time it takes to review and make a determination on an assai1lt weapon registration application becm1se it varies greatly depending on tl1e circumstances.

6. Please find enclosed the information you seek.

Enclosure

Sincerely,

ROBERT D. WILSON Deputy Attorney Genernl

Fol' XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General


EXHIBITE


State of California Department of Justice

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General·

Search

Translate Website I Traduclr Sltio Web

Bullet ~utton Assault Weapon " ' '¥' •• •• .......... •. • .. '" ............. ··~ ··- ..... -·-"··· """

Home / Firearms / Bullet Button Assault Weapon

Califor·nia Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS)

The DepartmentUi{iLJrt:E!QtiYi)<J?e/iei,cinf~-~ighyqlG111~~gf0sE!Fs~i{erji}:>fl~gj:o,I ···-·:· ''' '' --········-······· ... '' ' ... ·-···· .. ' '··- --:··- -•l

• (r~gi,ster their 9S.S.<!LJ1fir11ecJpo(ls .. ,

If you are experiencing difficulty processing an application in CFARS, please try the

trouble shooting options listed below.

Troubleshooting Tips:

• Clear your browser history. This can be done by selecting Shift+ Ctr! + Delete

on your keyboard. Be sure to clear your Cache, Cookies and Form & Search

History.

• Use a different web browser such as, Internet Explorer or Mozilla FireFox.

Mozilla Fire Fox is the preferred web browser to process an application in


CFARS.

• Change computers and/or networks (WiFi, cellular network, etc.)

• If you are still unable to submit your registration, you may try accessing the

system at a later time.

REMINDER: The last day to submit a bullet button assault weapon registration is

Saturday, June 30~ 2018. The Customer Support Center is available to assist the

public between the hours of 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday only. However,

staff will be available to assist with bullet button assault weapon registrations and

assault weapon serial number requests via email communication on Saturday,

June 30, 2018 until 11 :59:59 pm by contacting [email protected].

REMINDER: ASSAULT WEAPON REGISTRATION

ENDS AT 11:59:59 P.M. ON JUNE 30, 2018.

All applications for assault weapon registration must be submitted by this

deadline. No applications will be accepted thereafter (see Penal Code section

30900(b)(1) and California Code of Regulations, title 11, division 5, chapter 39,

section 5469).

NOTE: If you are in lawful possession of a bullet button assault weapon that is a·

Firearm Manufactured By Unlicensed Subject (FM BUS), you must obtain a DOJ

issued serial number by completing form BOF 1008 and emailing it to

[email protected]. The serial number issuance process is separate

from the assault weapon registration process and must be completed before the

assault weapon registration application will be accepted by DOJ.

Do I need to register my bullet button firearm?


Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 require that any person who, from January 1,

2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does

not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Penal Code section 30515, including those

weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the

firearm with the use of a tool (commonly referred to as a bullet-button) must register

the firearm before January 1, 2018. However, Assembly Bill 103 has since extended the

registration period from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2018.

Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 also define the meaning of "fixed magazine" to

mean an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a

firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of

the firearm action ..

This legislation closes the "bullet button" loop hole and categorizes "bullet button"

firearms as assault weapons. The adopted regulations for bullet button assault

weapon registration contains additional Information on registration requirements.

What is considered.an "assault weapon"?

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 (Stats. 2016, ch. 40) and Senate Bill 880 (Stats. 2016, ch.

48) effective January 1, 2017, the definition of "assault weapon" is revised to mean the

following:

RIFLES

a. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has

any one of the following:

i. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

· weapon.

ii. A thumbhole stock.


I

iii. A folding or telescoping stock.

iv. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

v. A flash suppressor,

vi. A forward pistol grip.

b. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to

accept more than 10 rounds.

c. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

PISTOLS

a. A semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of

the following:

i. A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward

handgrip, or sflencer.

ii. A second handgrip.

iii. A shroud that is attached to, or partialiy or completely encircles, the barrel

that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer's

hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.

iv. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outs(de of

the pistol grip.

b. · A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept

more than 1 O rounds.

SHOTGUNS

a. A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock.

ii. A pistol grip tt)at protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

b. A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.


c. Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Do I need a DOJ Serial Numb.er?

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 5474.2 a person in

possession of a Firearm Manufactured By Unlicensed Subject (FM BUS) must seek a

Department issued serial number prior to initiating the assault weapon registration

process.

Applicants seeking a serial number shall complete a New Serial Number Application

. (BOF 1008) and submit it to the Department per the instructions on the fqrm. For

instructions on how to complete the application, refer to the New Serial Number Form

Instructions. For additional information, please contact the Bureau of Firearms Assault

Weapon Registration Serial Number at: [email protected],gov.

Where can I register my assault weapon?

All registrations must be submitted electronically, through the California Firearms

Application Reporting System (CFARS) at https://cfars.doj.ca.gov, The registration fee is

$15 per person (transaction). To submit your application you will need:

• At least 4 photos of the firearm you intend to register (see sample photos)

o Close-up of the bullet button style magazine on the firearm.

o Stock to barrel (with the firearm lying horizontally on a flat surface).

o Left side of the receiver/frame.

o Right side of the receiver/frame.

• Proof of residency, if submitting a joint registration.

• Military permanent duty station orders indicating assignment within California, if

using a military ID to register. Active duty military spouse ID is not acceptable.


A CFARS Assault Weapon Registration Public User Guide is available for information on

how to submit an assault weapon registration electronically.

Where can I find additional information about bullet button assault weapons?

Addltional information can be found within the Bullet Button Assault Weapons

Frequently Asked Questions,

Additional Bureau of Firearms Links

1. California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS)

2. Frequently Asked Questions

3. Forms and Publications

4. Firearms Reporting & Law Enforcement Gun Release Application

5. Assault Weapons Identification Guide

6. California Firearms Laws Summary

7. Firearms Information for New California Residents

8. Contact Us

Bureau of Firearms·

Firearms Home

California Firearms Laws Summary, pdf(revised 2016)

FAQs

Forms and Publications

Becoming a Firearm Dealer and/or Ammunition Vendor in California

Firearm Safety Certificate Program, DOJ Certified Instructor Information and

Comparable Entities

Certificate of Eligibility Information and Application Process


Bullet Button Assault Weapon Information and Registration Process

Firearms Reporting & Law Enforcement Gun Release Application

Firearm Regulations/Rulemaking Activities

California Code of Regulations

Roster of Firearm Safety Devices Certified for Sale

Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale

Unique Serial Number Application (USNA) Process

Contact Us


STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

!-------------------·------·- ---.---------------------···- J Search \

L.--·-,-•--·-N---------·-"••••~--·------·•••·-·-·--~--------------------~---•••·--,~_,. ___ ,_,.,~-----------J•·-------.-......1

WHO WEARE

About AG Xavier Becerra

History of the Office


Organization of the Office

WHAT WEDO

Pu bile Safety

Opinions and Quo Warranto

Research

Children & Families

Civil Rights

Consumer Protection

Environment & Public Health

Tobacco Directory

OPEN GOVERNMENT

Ballot Initiatives

Conflicts of Interest

Criminal Justice Statistics

Meetings and Public Notl.ces

OpenJustlce Initiative

Public Records

Publications

Regulations

Memorial

Agents Fallen in the Line of Duty

Vote

Register to Vote

· WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON

21st Century Policing

Children's Rights

Consumer Protection and Economic Opportunity

Environmental Justice

Equality

Health Care

Immigration

OpenJustice


MEDIA

Consumer Alerts

Press Releases

Media Library

CAREERS

Getting a State Job

Examinations

Job Vacancies

Internships & Student Positions

Attorney General's Honors Program

Earl Warren Solicitor General Fellowship

Office of the Attorney General Accessibility Privacy Policy Conditions of Use Disclaimer

© 2018 DOJ


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10

11 l"'I

~ 12 c.:,

e:l 13 ~

!l ~ 14 o(l >-< ~1;! 15 "" "' >-< ~ o e 16 el 0

N~ 17

~ 18 "" 00 ~

19 faa1 [;l

20 >-< .... l"'I

21 Cl)

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George M. Lee (SBN 172982) Douglas A. Applegate (SBN 142000) SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP 601 Mont~omery Street, Suite 2000 San Fra11c1sco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 979-0500 Fax: (415) 979-0511

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe (SBN 228457) THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C. 2 North Front Street, Fifth Floor Wilmington NC 28401 Phone: (910) 713-8804 Fax:: (910) 672-7705





vs.



Case No. 190350

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[CCP § 527(a)]



On September 10, 2018, tlie court heard the motion of plaintiffs Harry Sharp, et al.

for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedme §

· 527(a), Hon. Tamara L. Wood presiding. All pruties were represented by their counsel of

record. The court reviewed all papers submitted in strpport or: and in opposition to, tlte

plaintiffs' motion, and heard the argument of cotmsel thereon. The matter having been

submitted, the court finds good cause and hereby ORDERS as follows:

II

II

I ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR.ISSUANCE OF A PREUMINARY!NJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


2

3

4

5

6

7

'8

9

~ 10 ...;i

11

~ 12

~ 13 ll<

<~ 14 ~,.;i i:;: t. 15 ""'~ ..;i .,

~e 16 -o N 1:: 17 ~ <ti [:l 18 "' ll<

19 ~ i:;: ""1 20 ...:i ..... ""1 rn 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STATEWIDE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF GRANTED PURSUANT TO Gov. CODE § 6707

1. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Plaintiffs

have shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claims, and that mandamus,

declaratory and injunctive relief should and likely will be granted in plaintiffs' favor, on

the grounds that the California Department of Justice, charged with establishing and

making available a public-facing Internet registration system for certain assault weapons,

pursuant to Pen. Code§ 30900{b)(2)-(5), closed and refused to accept any assault weapon

registrations beyond midnight on July 1, 2018 (the statutory deadline imposed by Pen.

Code§§ 30680(c) and 30900(b)(l)) ("Deadline"). The Court grants plah1tiffs' request

for judicial notice, and finds that the last day to submit registration forms to the DOJ fell

on a Saturday, June 30, 2018. Accordingly, and by operation oflaw, Gov. Code§ 6707,

the last day to submit registration applications with the DOJ should have been extended

to and through the following Monday, July 2, 2018, which theDOJ failed and refused to

do. Plaintiffs have also shown that irreparable injury is tlu·eatened by 1l1e loss of

plaintiffs' interests in liberty and prope1ty, in the absence of an h'\iunction fuat would

prevent all qualified persons possessing certain assault weapons (defined below) from

being subject to arrest, criminal prnsecution and/or civil forfeitme. 'This Court further

finds that the balance of harms tips in the plaintiffs' favor. Accordingly, the defendants

h1 this case, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as

Attorney General of the State of California, Brent Orick, in his official capacity as Acting

Chief of the Department of Justice Bmeau ofFireanns, Joe Dominic, in his official

capacity as Chief of the Department of Justice Califomia Justice Information Services

Division, and the Califomia Department of Justice (DOJ), fueir officers, agents, servants,

employees, and attorneys, and subdivisions, including: those persons in active concert or

participation with them, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law

enforcement officers who learn of the existence of this iqjunction order ( collectively

"Defendants"), are hereby enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code sections 30600

2 ,-------------------------~~~-----ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PR£LIMINAR Y INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


>'< ..:I ..:I !:l < C,

"' ,-l A.

!a ~ ~>-1 ~'Isl "' ., ~ tl 2 e ,... 0

~~ ,... !:l 00 A. [;al ,z

~ i.il

IJ1

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

(insofar as the statute would prohibit otherwise lawful transportation activities), and

30605, against any and all persons within this State who: (a) are not prohibited from

owning firearms; and (b) lawfully possessed, from January 1, 2001, to December 31,

2016, an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defmed in Section

30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily

removed from the firearm with the use of a tool (i.e., "bullet button assault weapons").

This injunction shall remain in force and effect, through the pendency of this case, and

until this Court may grant relief to the plaintiffs insofar as they seek to reopen the assault

weapon registrations system for a reasonable period of time, and with adequate notice, on

such terms that this Court may hereafter approve .

PRELIMINARY lNJUNCl'IVE RELIEF GRANTED· DUE PROCESS-

2. Plaintiffs have further shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits· of

!heir claims, and that mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief.should and likely will

be granted in plaintiffs' favor, on the gro1mds that 11ie California Department of Justice,

charged with establishing and making available a public-facing Internet registration

system for certain assault weapons, pursuant to Pen. Code§ 30900(b)(2)-(5), failed in its

ministerial duties to establish a functional, stable electronic registration· system, which

was not reasonably accessible to plaintiffs and a class of similarly-situated individuals

(defined below). Plaintiffs have established that they, and a class of similady-situated

individuals, had a clear, present and beneficial right in the performance of such duties,

and that as a result of such failures, plaintiffs and the class were deprived of due process.

Plaintiffs have also shown 11iat irreparable injury is threatened by the Joss of plaintiffs'

interest~ in liberty and property, in the absence of an injunction that would prevent all

qualified persons possessing certain assault weapons (defined below) from being subject

to anest, criminal prosecution and/or civil forfeitme. This Coutt further finds that the

balance of harms tips in the plaintiffs' favor. Accordingly, the defendants in this case,

3 ORDER GRANTING PLA1NTIJ1FS' MOTTON FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

CASE NO. 190350


l

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~ 10 ~ ~ 11 ~ 12 C!:I

~ 13 "-<

~~ 14 "' ~'"' ~".i 15 [.cl~ ..... s E! 16 - 0 N t: 17 z-,:: .... ~ 18 'LJ "-< l"1 19 ~ [.cl 20 ... -[.cl tf1 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

••• 4. This injtmction shall remain in force mid effect through the pendency of

this case, or until such other time as this Court may determine that the injunction is no

longer necessary or appropriate in preventing the harm the injunction is designed to

prevent.

5. This injunction shall operate as a defense to m1y civil enforcement action

brought pmsuant to Pen. Code§ 30800(a), insofar as such action may pertain to assault

weapons that may be registered.

6. Plaintiffs m·e relieved of any requirement to post a bond. [Or, the bond

shall be set in the amotmt of$1.00.]

7. Defendm1t Becen·a shall provide actual notice of this order to all law

enforcement personnel ,mder his direction and control who are charged with

implementing or enforcing the statutes hereby enjoined. The Attorney General shall file a

declaration demonstrating proof of such 11otice within ten days of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ---------~ JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

5 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNC!'ION

CASE NO. 190350


POS 040 . ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO 172,982 FOR COURT USE ONLY

NAME, George M. Lee FIRM NAME, Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP STREET ADDRESS: 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 crTY: San Francisco STATE: CA ZIP CODE. 94111 TELEPHONE NO. (415) 979-0500 FAX NO.: (415) 979-0500 E-MAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR (name): Plaintiffs Harry Sharp, et al.

SU PERI OR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SHASTA STREET ADDRESS: 1500 Court Street MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY AND ZIP CODE: Redding, CA 96001 BRANCH NAME:

CASE NUMBER

Plaintiff/Petitioner: Harry Sharp, et al. 190350

DefendanVRespondent: Xavier Becerra, et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER:

PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL Check method of service (only one):

D By Personal Service D By Mail D By Overnight Delivery DEPARTMENT:

. l::K] By Messenger Service D By Fax

Do not use this form to show service of a summons and complaint or for electronic service. See USE OF THIS f;ORM on page 3.

1. At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.

2. My residence or business address is:

601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111

3. D The fax number from which I served the documents is (complete if se,vice was by fax):

4. On (date): August 13, 2018 I se,ved the following documents (specify):

i:::KJ The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Se,vice---Civil (Documents Se,ved) (form POS-040(0)).

5. I served the documents on the person or persons below, as follows: a. Name of person served: Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney

General of California b. G:;a (Complete if service was by personal se,vice. mail, overnight deliv~ry. or messenger se,vice.)

Business or residential address where person was served:

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102 c. D (Complete if se,vice was by fax.)

Fax number where person was served:

D The names, addresses, and other applicable information about persons served is on the Attachment to Proof of SelVice-Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-040(P)).

6. The documents were served by the foll~wing means (specify):

a. D By personal service. I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or ( c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.

Form Approved for Op!ional Use Judicial Council of California POS-040 [Rev February 1, 2017]

PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (Proof of Service)

Page 1 of 3

Code of Civil Procedure,§§ 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015 5: Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.306

www.co(l£ts.ca.gov


CASE NAME: Harry Sharp, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 190350

P0S-04Q .

6. b. D By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one):

(1) D deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid.

(2) D placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing·correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.

I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at (city and state):

c. D By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of th_e overnight delivery carrier.

d. 0 By messenger service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration of Messenger below.)

e. D By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: August 13, 2018

Frances Kearney (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF NT)

{ff dem 6d above is checked, the declaration below must be completed or a separate declaration from a messenger mus be attarhe -------

DEC LARA Tl ON OF MESSENGER

[TI By personal service. I personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age. I am not a party to the above-referenced legal proceeding.

I served the envelope or package, as stated above, on (date): August 13, 2018


Date:

(r:,JAME OF DECLARANT)

POS-040 [Rev. February 1, 2017] PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (Proof of Service)

(SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)

Page2of3


-· SHORT TITLE: Harry Sharp, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al. CASE NUMBER·

190350

ATTACHMENT TO PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (DOCUMENTS SERVED)

/This Attachment is for use with fonm POS-040)

The documents that were served are as follows (describe each document specifically):

Notice of Mot10n and Motion of .t'laml!tts for Issuance of a Prel!mmary lnJunctlon.

POS-040(D)

'

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner Harry Sharp in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

Dec1arat10n ot namtur/ Pet1t1oner David AJ1rog1 m -Support of Plamtms' 1V10t1on tor issuance ot Prel!mmary Injunction

Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner Ryan Gilardy in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

'

1Jeclarat10n ot P Jamtmt rettt10ner ·Jerry J anraus m Support ot Pfamtnrs' Motton tor Issuance of Prel!mmary Injunction

ueclarat10n of Plamt1tt/J:'et1t10ner Dann Pnce m Support of Plamt111s iv10t1on tor issuance or Prel!mmary Injunction

Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner Todd Feltman in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner David Kuehl in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

Declaration of Plamt1n/Pet1t10ner Michael D. M1yabara-McCaskey m Support of Plamtlffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminaiy Injunction

Declaration of George M. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

[Proposed] Order Grantmg Plamtlrts' Motlon for Issuance of a Prelnmnary Iniunct1on

FoJ':::,(c/'!~:::;~~ft:f;,':;,~" ATTACHMENT TO PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (DOCUMENTS SERVED) P0S-040(D) [New January 1. 2oos1 (Proof of Service} ·

Page_· _of_


POS-040 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NO: 172,982 FOR COURT USE ONLY

NAME: George M. Lee FIRM NAME Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP STREET ADDRESS, 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 CITY: San Francisco STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 94111 TELEPHONE ND., (415) 979-0500 FAX NO.: (415) 979-0500 E-MAILADDRESS: [email protected]

ATTORNEYFOR(name}: Plaintiffs Harry Sharp, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SHASTA STREET ADDRESS: 1500 Court Street MAILING ADDRESS:


CASE NUMBER:


Defendant/Respondent: Xavier Becerra, et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER:



CK] By Messenger Service D ByFax

Do not use this form to show service of a summons and complaint or for electronic service. See USE OF THIS FORM on page 3.

1. · At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.



3. CJ The fsix number from which I served the documents is (complete if service was by fax):

4. On (date): August 13, 2018 I served the following documents (specify):

CK] The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Servicf>-Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-040(D)).

5. I served the documents_ on the person or persons below, as follows: a. Nameofpersonserved: Brent E. Orick, in his official capacity as Acting Chief

of the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms . b. [xx] (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, overnight delivery, or messenger service.)

Business or residential address where person was served:

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102

c. CJ (Complete if service was by fax.)


D The names, addresses, and other applicable information about persons served is on the Attachment to Proof of ServiceCivil (Persons Served) (form POS-040(P)).

6. The documents were served by the following means (specify):

a. CJ By personal service. I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or ari individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.

Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Cauncll of California POS-040 (Rev February 1. 2017]

PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (Pro9f of Service)

Page1of3

coda of Civil Procedure,§§ 1011, 1013. 1013a, 2015.5. Cal Rul2s of Court, rule 2.306

W'NW.courts.ca.gov



.

CASE NUMBER: 190350

POS-040

6. b. D By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed \o the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one): ·


(2) D placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. ·

I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at ( city and state):

c. D By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons ·at the addresses in item 5. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.

d. [K] By messenger service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained iii the Declaration of Messenger below.)




Frances Kearney (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DEC ... --····

(If item 6d above is checked, the declaration below must be completed or a separate declaration from a messenger must be ttache

DECLARATION OF MESSENGER

[KJ By personal service. I personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.




Date:

(N'AME OF DECLARANT)

POS-040 [Re11. February 1. 2017] PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (Proof of Service)

(SIG.NATURE OF DECtARANT)

Page2of3


SHORT TITLE: Harry Sharp, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al. CASE NUMBER:

190350 -

ATTACHMENT TO PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIi,. (DOCUMENTS SERVED) (This Attachment is for use with form POS-040)


l'Wtlce of Motion and Motion ot Plamtms for Issuance ot a Prel!mmary In1unct10n

POS-040(0)


Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner Harry Sharp in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Pre[iminary Injunction

ueclarat10n of Plamt1111Pet1t10ner David A11rog1 m Support of Plamtdfs' Mallon for lssuance of Prel!mmary Injunction

Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner Rym1 Gilardy in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

uec1arat10n or J:'lamtitt1Pet1t10ner l erry Ja!Jraus m ::iupport of J:'lamt1rrs' Motion for Issuance of Prelimmary Injunction

uecJm·at10n of Plamtur;yetJt10ner Dann Pnce m Support ot Plamturs Motion tor Issuance or Prel1mmary lnjtmction

Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner Todd Feltman in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction


Declaration of Plamtm1Pet1t1oner Michael D. M1yabara-McCaskey m Support of Plamt1tt~' Mot10n tor Issuance of Preliminary Injunction


[Proposed] urder Grantmg Plamtnrs' Motion tor Issuance or a Prel1mmary lnJunctlon

FoJC:::,t:a'ri:~::~~0/;:;;:,';;,~" ATTACHMENT TO PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (DOCUMENTS SERVED) Page_of_

P0S--040(Di [New January 1, 2005] (Proof of Service)


POS0 040 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATIORNEY· STATE BAR NO: 172,982 FOR COURT USE ONLY

NAME: George M. Lee FIRM NAME Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP sTREET ADDRESS: 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 c1TY: San Francisco STATE: CA ZIP COOE, 94111 TELEPHONE NO.. (415) 979-0500 FAX NO.: (415) 979-0500 E-MAILADDRESS: [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR (name): Plaintiffs Harry Sharp, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SHASTA STREET ADDRESS: 1500 Court Street MAILING ADDRESS:


CASE NUMBER:


Defendant/Respondent: Xavier Becerra, et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER:



CK] By Messenger Service D By Fax

Do not use this form to show service of a slimmons and complaint or for electronic service. See USE OF THIS FORM on page 3.

1. At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.



3. CJ The fax number from which 1 ·served the documents is (complete if service was by fax):

4. On (date): August 13, 2018 I.served the following documents (specify):

cg] The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Se,vice-Civil (Documents Served) (form P0S-040(D)).

5. I served the documents on the person or per,;on~ below,, as follpws: ff. . 1 , t Ch· f f the f

Joe Dominic, in his o icia capaci y as ie o a. Name o person served: . 1 , f · J t · I f ti' on s~~vf· Res Department of Justice Cai ornia .us ice n or~a. . ck.~

b. {x] (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, overnight delivery, or messenger service.) Divis ion

Business or residential address where person was ser.(ed:

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94102

c. CJ (Complete if service was by fax.)


CJ The names, addresses, and other applicable information about persons served is on the Attachment to Proof of ServiceCivil /Persons Se,ved) (form P0S-040(P)).

6. The documents were served by the following means (specify):

a. CJ By personal service. I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and frve in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.

Form Approved for Optional Use - Judiclal Council of California

POS--040 [Rev. Februaf)' 1. 2017]


Page1 ofJ

Code of Civil Procedure,§§ 1011, 1013, 1013a. 2015.5: Cal Rules of Court, rule 2.306

www co11rts.ca.gov


POS-04ij CASE NAME: Harry Sharp, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 190350

6. b. D By United.States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one):


(2) D placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. ·

I .am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at . (city and state):

C. D By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.

d. IT] By messenger service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the ·addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained iri the Declaration of Messenger below.)




Frances Kearney (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DEC RANT)

(If Item 6d above IS checked, the declaration below must be completed Of a separate declaration from a messenger must be. attar

DECLARATION OF MESSENGER ~.../

CK] By personal service. I personally delivered the envelope or package ri;,ce1ved from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to t_he attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.




Date:

(NAME OF DECLARANT)

POS--040 [Rev. February 1. 20171 PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (Proof of Service)

(SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)

P<1ge 2 of 3


SHORT TITLE: Harry Sharp, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al. CASE NUMBER:

190350


(This Attachment is for use with form POS-040)


Notice or Mol!on and Motion ot Plamtms tor Issuance ot a Prel!mmary InJunction

POS-040(D)


Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner Harry Sharp in Supp01i of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

Declarat10n of Plamtnr/Petitioner Davw AJirogi m Support of Plamtms' Mot10n tor Issuance ot Prel!mmary Injunction

Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner Ryan Gilardy in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

. ueclarat10n of t'Jamt!III t'etit10ner Terry Jamaus m Support ot t'Jamtms' Motion tor lssuance _or t'rel!mmary Injunction

Declarat10n or namtm1 t'et1t10ner Dann Pnce m Support o! P lamtms Motion !or issuance ot Prel!mmary Injunction

Declaratioil of Plaintiff/Petitioner Todd Feltman in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Ir,junction


Declarat10n ot Plamtim Petit10ner Michael D. M1yabara-McCaskey m Support ot Plamtms' Mot10n tor Issuance of Preliminary Injunction


LProposect] Order Grantmg P!amtms' Motion tor Issuance o! a Prelimmary InJ1mction

'0,':;:,,~,;r~:::;,)'0?t:f;,::,~se ATTACHMENT TO PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (DOCUMENTS SERVED) Page_of_

P0S-040(D) [New January 1. 2005] (Proof of Service)


ATTORNEY OR PARl'f IMTHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO: 172,982 FOR COURT use ONLY

NAME: George M. Lee FIRM NAME: Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP srneer ADDRESS: 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 c1TY: San Francisco STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 94111 TELEPHONE NO.: (415) 979-0500 FAX NO.: (415) 979-0500 E-MAIL ADDRESS: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR (n•m•>: Plaintiffs Harry Sharp, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAllFORNIA, COUNTY OF SHASTA STREET ADDRESS: 1500 Court Street MAI UNG ADDRESS:

CllY AND ZIP CODE: Redding, CA 96001 BRANCH NAME:

CASE NUMBER:


Defendanl/Respondent: Xavier Becerra, et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER:

PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL Check method of service (only o~e):

D By Personal Service D ByMail D By Overnight Delivery DEPARTMEITT:

[KJ By Messenger Service D ByFax

Do not use this form to show service of a summons and complalnt or for electronic service •. See USE OF THIS FORM on page 3.

1. At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this·action. ·



3. D The fax number from which I served the documents Is (complete if service was by fax):

4. On (date): August 13, 2018 I served the following documents (specify):

[K] The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Se1vicrr-Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-040(0)).

5. I served the documents on the person or persons below, as follows:

a. Name of person served, California Department of Justice b. · 1xxJ (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, ovemight delivery, or messenger se,vice.)

Business or residential address where person was served: 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102

c. D (Complete if service was by fax.)


POS 040 .

D The names, addresses, and other applicable information about persons served Is on the Attachment to Proof of Service----Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-040(P)).

6. The documents were served by the foflowing means (specify):

a. D By personal service. I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be lert, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by le.aving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eigl1t in the morning and six in the evening.

Farm Approved !cir Op!lanal Uss Judicial Council of Cali!omla POS...040 [Rav. Fo!mmry 1, 2017)


Page 1 of J

Gode of Civil Procedura, §§ 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5; Cal. Rt.4es of Court, rule 2Jl00

www courts.ca.gov



CASE NUMBER: 190350

POS-040

6, b. D By United States mall. I enclosed the documents In a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one):


(2) D placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for oollectlng and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United S(ates Postal Service, In a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.

I am a resident or employed In the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mall at (city and state):

c. D By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.

d. [KJ By messenger s~rvice. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed In item 5 and providing them to a p,'ofesslonal messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration of Messenger below.)

e. D By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the. fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached.

I declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct


Frances Kearney (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF OECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLA

(If item 6d above is checkod, the declaration below must be completed or a seperate declaration from a messenger must e attaohe .)

DECLARATION OF MESSENGER

[RJ By personal service. I personally delivered the envelope or package received from the deolarant above to the persons at the · addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a parly represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an Individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six In the evening.




Date:

(NAME OF DECLARANl)

POS-040 [R!1v. FsOruary 1. 20171

~·~------


{SIGNAlURE OF DECLAl'l.ANT)


POS-040(0)

SHORT TITLE: Han'Y Sharp, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al. CASE NUMBER:

190350 L '


(This Attachment is for use with form POS-040)


Notice of Mohon and Motion or Plarntins for Issuance of a Prelunmary lnJtmct10n

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary· Injunction

Declaration of Plarntiff/Petitioner Harry Sharp in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

Ueclarat1on or Plamtiff'/J,et1tloner David AJ1rog1 m 1lupport of Plamtms' Motion tor issuance ot Prellmmary Injunction

· Declaration of Plaintiff/Petitioner Ryan Gilardy in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction ·

1Jeclaratuii'1 of Plaintift7Pet1tioner Terry Jahraus· in Support of P Jamlltts' Motion for lssum1ce of Prehmmmy Injm1ction

I 1eclm·ation 6I PlmntT1t!Pet1t10ner Vann Pnce m ::iupport ol' Plamtins Motion for Issuance ot Prelnnrnary Injunction

Declaratioil of Plaintif17Petitioner Todd Feltman in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issumice of Preliminary Injunction

Declaration of Plamtifi7Petitioner David Kuehl rn Support of Plamtiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

Decfaration of Plaintifl:/Peufioner Michae1 D. M1yabara•McCaskey in Support of Plaintiffa' Motion for --Issumice of Prelimina1'Y Injunction

Declaration of George M. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Preliminm'Y Injunction

-I [Proposed] Order Urantmf P1 amtltl's'}Aotion for Issuance of a Preliminary lnJunction

" I ..

J '

Focm ApprovodfocOpliocaiUse UMENTS SERVED) Jud1,1a1co""'"''c,i,orn1, ATTACHMENT TO PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (DOC , POS--040(0) [New January 1. 2oos1 (Proof of Service)

Page_of_


Exhibit D - Internet Archive

Documents

Transcript of Exhibit D - Internet Archive