Stavrianoudakis v. U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER STAVRIANOUDAKIS, et al., No. 1:18-cv-01505-NONE-BAM

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

13 v. MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR

14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WILDLIFE, et al., 15 (Doc. Nos. 17, 65, 66, 68)

Defendants.

16

17 18 Plaintiffs Peter Stavrianoudakis (“Peter”), Katherine Stavrianoudakis (“Katherine”), Eric 19 Ariyoshi, Scott Timmons, and the American Falconry Conservancy (“AFC”) (collectively, 20 “plaintiffs”) initiated the present lawsuit against defendants United States Fish & Wildlife Service 21 (“USFWS”) and its director1 (collectively, “Federal Defendants”) and Charlton H. Bonham, the 22 director of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (“DFW” or “State Defendant”) 23 (collectively with Federal Defendants, “defendants”), claiming that certain regulations violate the 24 First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and were promulgated in excess 25 of statutory authority in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. 26 (“APA”). Plaintiffs, except Katherine, are licensed falconers who own trained falcons that are

27 1 Aurelia Skipworth was Director of USFWS until January 19, 2021. The Clerk of Court will be instructed to substitute Martha Williams, Principal Deputy Director, with defendant Aurelia 28 Skipworth.

2

1 housed inside their homes or within the curtilage of their homes. The challenged regulations 2 govern the sport of falconry, which is defined by regulation as “caring for and training raptors2 3 for pursuit of wild game, and hunting wild game with raptors.” 50 C.F.R. § 21.3 (“Falconry 4 includes the taking of raptors from the wild to use in the sport; and caring for, training, and 5 transporting raptors held for falconry.”); see also 14 C.C.R. § 670(b)(7) (defining falconry as “the 6 possession, housing, trapping, transport, and use of raptors for the purpose of hunting or 7 training.”). 8 Presently before the court are two motions for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs 9 (Doc. Nos. 17, 65) and two motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (“SAC”) 10 filed by the Federal Defendants and State Defendant, respectively (Doc. Nos. 66, 68). A hearing 11 on those motions was held back on August 20, 2021, at which time the motions were taken under 12 submission for decision. Attorney James Manley appeared at the hearing on behalf of plaintiffs, 13 Assistant United States Attorney Philip Scarborough appeared on behalf of the Federal 14 Defendants, and California Deputy Attorney General Ali Karaouni appeared on behalf of State 15 Defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant in part and deny in part 16 defendants’ motions to dismiss and deny plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction.3 17 ///// 18 ///// 19 /////

20 21 2 Another term for falcon, a “raptor” is defined as “any bird of the Order Falconiformes, Accipitriformes, or Strigiformes, or a hybrid thereof” by the California regulations. 14 C.C.R.

22 § 670(b)(15); see also 50 C.F.R. § 21.3 (defining raptor as “a migratory bird of the Order Accipitriformes, the Order Falconiformes, or the Order Strigiformes . . .”).

23 3 The undersigned apologizes for the delay in the issuance of this order. This court’s 24 overwhelming caseload has been well publicized and the long-standing lack of judicial resources 25 in this district long-ago reached crisis proportion. That situation, which continued unabated for over twenty-two months but has now been partially addressed by the U.S. Senate’s confirmation 26 of a new district judge for this court on December 17, 2021, left the undersigned presiding over 1,300 civil cases and criminal matters involving 735 defendants at last count. Unfortunately, that 27 situation sometimes results in the court not being able to issue orders in submitted civil matters within an acceptable period of time. This situation has been frustrating to the court, which fully 28 realizes how incredibly frustrating it is to the parties and their counsel.

3

1 BACKGROUND 2 A. Regulatory Background 3 1. Migratory Bird Treaty Act 4 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) codifies the protections of migratory birds as 5 outlined in various conventions between the United States and four neighboring countries: 6 Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. 16 U.S.C. § 703(a); 50 C.F.R. § 10.13(a). It applies only to 7 migratory birds native to the United States, including several types of Falconiformes (vultures, 8 kites, eagles, hawks, caracaras, and falcons) and Strigiformes (owls). 50 C.F.R. §§ 10.13(c), 9 21.29(a)(1)(i). The Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”) is authorized to adopt suitable 10 regulations to determine, inter alia, when, to what extent, and by what means it may be 11 permissible to hunt, take, capture, possess, sell, or transfer protected birds, bird parts, nests, and 12 eggs.4 16 U.S.C. § 704; 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(a)(1). 13 Pursuant to the MBTA, USFWS promulgated regulations on falconry standards and 14 falconry permitting, which became effective on November 7, 2008. See 50 C.F.R. § 21.29; 73 15 Fed. Reg. 59,448 (Oct. 8, 2008). For example, the Secretary may delegate responsibility for 16 issuing falconry licenses and enforcing falconry standards to the relevant state, territorial, or tribal 17 government upon a showing that their own laws and regulations meet the federal standards. 50 18 C.F.R. § 21.29(b)(1)(i), (b)(3). California has created its own regulatory scheme for falconry 19 permitting, which USFWS approved as being compatible with the federal regulations. See 78

20 Fed. Reg. 72830–01 (Dec. 4, 2013) (“[A] Federal permit will no longer be required to practice 21 falconry in any State with its own falconry regulations beginning January 1, 2014.”); 50 C.F.R.

22 § 21.29(b)(3). The California regulations explicitly incorporate the federal regulations by 23 reference. 14 C.C.R. § 670(a)(4). 24 USFWS “may review the administration of an approved State’s . . . falconry program if 25 complaints from the public or law enforcement investigations indicate the need for a review or for

26 27 4 USFWS, a part of the Department of the Interior, is the relevant regulatory agency, and the director of USFWS “is frequently the authorized representative of the Secretary of the Interior . . .

28 .” 50 C.F.R. § 1.2.

4

1 revisions to the State’s . . . laws, or falconry examination.” 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(b)(4) (stating the 2 review may involve “[r]eviewing laws to determine if they meet the requirements of this 3 section”). If USFWS determines that the state regulatory scheme has deficiencies, then USFWS 4 “may propose to suspend, and may suspend, the approval of a State . . . falconry program . . .” Id. 5 § 21.29(b)(5)(i). USFWS will first provide written notice to the State and the State “will have 2 6 years from the date of [the] notification to correct the deficiencies.” Id. § 21.29(b)(5)(ii)–(iii). 7 After two years, if USFWS still finds suspension is warranted, it “will provide written notice of 8 suspension” and “[t]he suspension of approval of the State’s . . . falconry program will be 9 effective 180 days from the date of [USFWS’s] final notification of suspension.” Id. 10 § 21.29(b)(5)(iv). USFWS “will honor all falconry permits in that jurisdiction for 2 years from 11 the date of [its] final notification of suspension of certification.” Id. § 21.29(b)(5)(v). 12 2. Unannounced Inspection Provisions 13 Every falconry license holder “must submit to [their] State, tribal, or territorial agency that 14 regulates falconry a signed and dated statement showing that [they] agree that the falconry 15 facilities and raptors may be inspected without advance notice by State, tribal (if applicable), or 16 territorial authorities at any reasonable time of day, but [they] must be present.” 50 C.F.R. 17 § 21.29(d)(2)(ii). The California regulations contain a similar provision, which reads that “[t]he 18 department may conduct unannounced visits to inspect facilities, equipment, or raptors possessed 19 by the licensee, and may enter the facilities of any licensee when the licensee is present during a

20 reasonable time of day and on any day of the week.” 14 C.C.R. § 670(j)(3)(A). Like the federal 21 regulation, California also requires falconry license applicants to sign a certification stating, in

22 part, “I understand that my facilities, equipment, or raptors are subject to unannounced inspection 23 pursuant to [14 C.C.R. § 670(j)].” Id. § 670(e)(2)(D). 24 3. Regulations Relating to Falconers’ Speech and Compensated Activities 25 Federal regulations provide the following falconry standards relating to speech and

26 compensated activities: 27 (f) Additional information on the practice of falconry— 28 ...

5

1 (8) Use of falconry raptors in conservation education programs. If you are a General or Master Falconer, you may use a bird you possess 2 in conservation education programs presented in public venues.

3 ...

4 (iv) You may charge a fee for presentation of a conservation education program. The fee may not exceed the amount required to 5 recoup your costs.

6 (v) In conservation education programs, you must provide information about the biology, ecological roles, and conservation 7 needs of raptors and other migratory birds, although not all of these topics must be addressed in every presentation. You may not give 8 presentations that do not address falconry and conservation education.

9 ...

10 (9) Other educational uses of falconry raptors. You may allow 11 photography, filming, or other such uses of falconry raptors to make movies or other sources of information on the practice of falconry or 12 on the biology, ecological roles, and conservation needs of raptors and other migratory birds, though you may not be paid for doing so.

13 (i) You may not use falconry raptors to make movies, commercials, 14 or in other commercial ventures that are not related to falconry.

15 (ii) You may not use falconry raptors for commercial entertainment;

for advertisements; as a representation of any business, company, 16 corporation, or other organization; or for promotion or endorsement of any products, merchandise, goods, services, meetings, or fairs, 17 with the following exceptions:

18 (A) You may use a falconry raptor to promote or endorse a nonprofit falconry organization or association.

19 (B) You may use a falconry raptor to promote or endorse products or 20 endeavors related to falconry, including, but not limited to items such as hoods, telemetry equipment, giant hoods, perches, materials for 21 raptor facilities, falconry training and education materials, and scientific research and publication.

22

23 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(8)(iv)–(v), (f)(9)(i)–(ii). A California regulation similarly provides the 24 following: 25 (h) Possession, Transfer, and Disposition of Raptors.

26 ... 27 (13) Other Uses of Falconry Raptors. A licensee may use falconry raptors for education, exhibiting, propagation, or abatement.

6

1 ...

2 (A) Education and Exhibiting. A licensee may use raptors in his or her possession for training purposes, education, field meets, and 3 media (filming, photography, advertisements, etc.), as noted in 50 CFR 21, if the licensee possesses the appropriate valid federal 4 permits, as long as the raptor is primarily used for falconry and the activity is related to the practice of falconry or biology, ecology or 5 conservation of raptors and other migratory birds. Any fees charged, compensation, or pay received during the use of falconry raptors for 6 these purposes may not exceed the amount required to recover costs.

An Apprentice falconer may use the licensee’s falconry raptor for 7 education purposes only under the supervision of a General or Master falconer.

8

9 14 C.C.R. § 670(h)(13)(A). 10 B. Factual Background 11 1. Peter and Katherine Stavrianoudakis 12 Peter Stavrianoudakis is the president of AFC, has been licensed as a falconer for over 13 thirty years, and is a master falconer. (Doc. No. 64 ¶ 24.) Katherine Stavrianoudakis has been 14 married to Peter since May 2014 and has lived with him in the same residence for a total of five 15 years, but she does not have a falconry license. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 81, 83.) Both reside in Hilmar, 16 California. (Id. ¶¶ 24–25.) Peter has “housed, cared for, trained, and flown approximately 15 17 birds,” including a four-year-old aplomado falcon named “Ares” who he currently owns. (Id. 18 ¶¶ 74–76.) According to the SAC, “[t]here is no separate structure used for the care or housing of 19 Ares,” and instead, “Ares lives exclusively inside Peter’s home, specifically inside his and 20 Katherine’s bedroom, and to ensure Ares’ health, is occasionally weathered in a protected 21 enclosure in on [sic] their fenced property approximately 20 feet from their home.” (Id. ¶ 79–80.) 22 Peter neither earns income nor participates in any kind of industry through his ownership, 23 training, or care of Ares. (Id. ¶ 78.) 24 Peter alleges that “[i]n approximately 1983, [he] was subject to an unreasonable 25 warrantless search of his home and warrantless arrest by armed members of the California 26 Department of Fish and Wildlife related to his lawful activities as a non-resident falconer in 27 Nevada.” (Id. ¶ 69.) No charges were filed against Peter following this alleged search and arrest, 28 and he “has never been sanctioned or cited by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, California Fish and

7

1 Wildlife, or any other agency or body, related to his practice of falconry.” (Id. ¶¶ 70, 73.) 2 2. Eric Ariyoshi 3 Eric Ariyoshi is the secretary for AFC and resides in Novato, California. (Doc. No. 64 ¶ 4 26.) He “has housed, cared for, trained, and flown approximately 20 birds,” including a three- 5 year-old peregrine falcon named “Finn,” who is currently “housed in an unrestricted mews5 6 located 30 feet away with a direct line of sight to the rear of [Ariyoshi’s] home.” (Id. ¶¶ 89, 91– 7 92.) Ariyoshi has given educational presentations about falconry without compensation. (Id. ¶ 8 94.) As a licensed falconer for over 30 years, Ariyoshi “has never been sanctioned or cited by 9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife, California Fish and Wildlife, or any other agency or body, related to his 10 practice of falconry.” (Id. ¶¶ 86, 90.) 11 3. Scott Timmons 12 Scott Timmons is a member of AFC, has been a licensed falconer for over 30 years, and 13 resides in Lompoc, California. (Doc. No. 64 ¶ 27.) Additionally, Timmons has been licensed for 14 over ten years to use falcons in professional abatement and owns Aerial Solutions, a small 15 privately-owned abatement company. (Id. (defining abatement as “the practice of flying certain 16 species of raptor over a given area as a deterrent to the presence of other invasive bird species.”).) 17 As a falconer, Timmons “has housed, cared for, trained, and flown approximately 40 birds,” 20 of 18 which have been used for abatement services. (Id. ¶ 98.) Timmons currently owns three birds: 19 (1) a five-year-old goshawk named “June”; (2) a five-year-old peregrine falcon named “Jeppa”;

20 and (3) a six-year-old harris hawk named “Tio.” (Id. ¶ 106.) All three birds “live exclusively in 21 mews and other structures directly adjacent to [Timmons’] home.” (Id. ¶ 108.)

22 In 1992, Timmons alleges that he “was approached on his mother’s private property in 23 Thousand Oaks, California, by officers of the California Fish & Game Department” who were 24 inquiring “as to whether he was still in possession of a certain red-tailed hawk.” (Id. ¶¶ 100, 25 102.) Timmons, who was living with his mother and attending college at that time, told the

26 officers that the hawk flew away but he soon learned that the officers were already in possession 27 5 A mew is defined as “an enclosure trained for hawks—usually used in plural.” Mew, Merriam 28 Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mew (last visited August 30, 2021).

8

1 of the hawk. (Id. ¶¶ 101, 103.) According to Timmons, the officers “used the hawk as a pretext 2 to attempt an unreasonable warrantless search of his mother’s private property.” (Id. ¶ 104.) To 3 date, Timmons “has never been sanctioned or cited by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, California Fish and 4 Wildlife, or any other agency or body, related to his practice of falconry.” (Id. ¶ 105.) 5 4. AFC 6 Established in 2002, AFC is a membership organization comprised of approximately 100 7 members across the United States and is open to any “falconer—neither antagonistic nor 8 detrimental to the association or its purpose—of good moral character and over the age of 17 9 years.” (Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 113, 117.) Its stated purpose is to promote “the broadest liberties 10 possible that are not in conflict with legitimate conservation efforts based upon sound biological 11 and legal reasoning,” and “promote knowledge of quality falconry, as well as to instill pride in 12 falconers for the cultural heritage of the sport, and its place in world history.”6 (Id. ¶ 114.) 13 According to the SAC, AFC members are subject to the challenged regulations by virtue of 14 holding falconry licenses. (See id. ¶¶ 119–24.) 15 C. Procedural History 16 On January 18, 2019, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (“FAC”) in this action, 17 which defendants moved to dismiss in two separate motions. (Doc. Nos. 16, 24, 25.) Plaintiffs 18 also filed a motion for preliminary injunction on January 28, 2019. (Doc. No. 17.) 19 On January 24, 2020, the court issued an order addressing those three motions. (Doc. No.

20 59.) First, the court granted in part and denied in part both motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs were 21 granted leave to amend to attempt to cure any pleading deficiencies noted by the court. (Doc. No.

22 59 at 53–54.) At that time, counts I and II of the original complaint were dismissed as to all 23 plaintiffs due to their lack of standing to bring their Fourth Amendment challenges. Counts III, 24 IV, V, VI, and VI (second count)7 were dismissed with respect to Katherine and Ariyoshi based

25 6 A separate organization, North American Falconers Association, filed an amicus brief which 26 largely supports the position of defendants. (See Doc. No. 33.)

27 7 In their FAC, plaintiffs erroneously labeled two counts “Count VI.” (Doc. No. 16 at 18–19.) In its prior order, the court referred to the second Count VI as “Count VI (second count).” (Doc.

28 No. 59 at 2 n.2.) Plaintiffs corrected this mislabeling in their SAC.

9

1 upon the finding that they lacked standing to bring their First Amendment challenges. Count VII 2 which addressed the unannounced inspection provisions was also dismissed due to plaintiffs’ lack 3 of standing to bring their Fourth Amendment challenges. Defendants’ motions to dismiss were 4 otherwise denied. 5 Second, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction with respect to 6 Counts I and II, finding that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of those counts since 7 they lacked standing to bring their Fourth Amendment claims. (Id. at 50.) Regarding the First 8 Amendment claims, however, the court ordered defendants to file supplemental briefing 9 “addressing the state interest(s) in the regulations challenged under the First Amendment and how 10 those speech restrictions are tailored to achieve those interests, and relatedly, the balance of 11 equities and the public interest prongs under Winter.” (Id. at 54.) 12 On February 24, 2020, plaintiffs filed their SAC, alleging the following causes of action 13 against all named defendants: (1) unconstitutional condition on falconry licenses in violation of 14 the Fourth Amendment on behalf of Peter, Ariyoshi, Timmons, and AFC (“Count I”); 15 (2) authorization and practice of unconstitutional warrantless searches of property of falconry 16 license holders in violation of the Fourth Amendment on behalf of Peter, Ariyoshi, Timmons, and 17 AFC (“Count II”); (3) warrantless search of non-falconry license holders in violation of the 18 Fourth Amendment on behalf of Katherine (“Count III”); (4) prohibitions against free speech in 19 violation of the First Amendment on behalf of Peter, Timmons, and AFC (“Count IV”)

20 (challenging 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(9)(i)); (5) prohibitions against commercial speech in violation 21 of the First Amendment on behalf of Peter, Timmons, and AFC (“Count V”) (challenging 50

22 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(9)(ii)); (6) compelled content of conservation education programs in violation 23 of the First Amendment on behalf of Peter, Timmons, and AFC (“Count VI”) (challenging 50 24 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(8)(v)); (7) prohibitions on payment for conservation education programs in 25 violation of the First Amendment on behalf of Peter, Timmons, and AFC (“Count VII”)

26 (challenging 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(8)(iv)); (8) prohibitions against free speech in violation of the 27 First Amendment on behalf of Peter, Timmons, and AFC (“Count VIII”) (challenging 14 C.C.R.

28 § 670(h)(13)(A)); and (9) regulations in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations

10

1 in violation of the APA on behalf of all plaintiffs (“Count IX”). (See generally Doc. No. 64 at 2 17–28.) Plaintiffs also filed a separate, renewed motion for preliminary injunction based on their 3 Fourth Amendment claims, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of “the regulations authorizing 4 unreasonable warrantless searches of the homes, curtilage, papers, and effects of licensed 5 falconers. . . .” (Doc. No. 65 at 2.) Defendants subsequently filed their respective motions to 6 dismiss the SAC and their supplemental briefing in response to the court’s order regarding 7 plaintiffs’ original motion for preliminary injunction based on the First Amendment claims. 8 (Doc. Nos. 66–69.) All matters have been fully briefed and a hearing on the pending motions was 9 held on August 20, 2021. 10 LEGAL STANDARDS 11 A. Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) 12 Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter 13 jurisdiction. “When a defendant brings a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the plaintiff has the burden of 14 establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Johnson v. Jacobs, No. 2:14-cv-02323-JAM-EFB, 2015 15 WL 1607986, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2015) (citing Rattlesnake Coal. v. U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 16 509 F.3d 1095, 1102 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007)). 17 “A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. 18 Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 19 2000)). “The district court resolves a facial attack as it would a motion to dismiss under Rule

20 12(b)(6): [a]ccepting the plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in 21 the plaintiff’s favor, the court determines whether the allegations are sufficient as a legal matter to

22 invoke the court’s jurisdiction.” Leite v. Crane Co., 797 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). As in a 23 Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of 24 factual allegations. Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 “By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by

26 themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 27 1039. Notably, extrinsic evidence is heard on factual attacks and the court may review “any

28 evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of

11

1 jurisdiction.” McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added) 2 (citing Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731 (1947)). 3 B. Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 4 A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is a challenge to the sufficiency of the 5 allegations set forth in the complaint. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper where there is 6 either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 7 cognizable legal theory.” Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 8 In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court generally accepts as true 9 the allegations in the complaint, construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the party 10 opposing the motion, and resolves all doubts in the pleader’s favor. Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. 11 Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). 12 To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 14 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 15 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 16 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a 17 ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 18 unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 19 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to

20 provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions.” 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “bare assertions . . . amount[ing] to

22 nothing more than a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements’ . . . are not entitled to be assumed 23 true.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681. “[T]o be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a 24 complaint . . . must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to 25 enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th

26 Cir. 2011). In practice, “a complaint . . . must contain either direct or inferential allegations 27 respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal

28 theory.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562. To the extent that the pleadings can be cured by the

12

1 allegation of additional facts, a plaintiff should be afforded leave to amend. Cook, Perkiss and 2 Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). 3 C. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 4 “[P]laintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) they are likely to 5 succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 6 relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the 7 public interest.” Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter 8 v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). A stronger showing on one of these four 9 elements may offset a weaker showing on another, but the movant must nonetheless “make a 10 showing on all four prongs.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th 11 Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate when a 12 plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of 13 hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. (finding this “serious question” version of the 14 circuit’s sliding scale approach survives “when applied as part of the four-element Winter test.”) 15 (citation omitted). “That is, ‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships 16 that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as 17 the plaintiff also shows that there is likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in 18 the public interest.” Id. at 1135. The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving 19 these elements. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009). Finally, a

20 preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded when the plaintiff 21 makes a clear showing of entitlement to relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.

22 ANALYSIS 23 A. Facial or As-Applied Challenges 24 1. Fourth Amendment 25 In its prior order, the court noted that plaintiffs FAC did not clearly articulate whether

26 their Fourth Amendment claims were facial and/or as-applied in nature. (Doc. No. 59 at 9.) 27 Under Counts I, II, and III of the SAC, plaintiffs specify that they are asserting both facial and as-

28 applied challenges (Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 158, 171, 177, 189), and their opposition briefs again discuss

13

1 both forms of the claim (see Doc. Nos. 73 at 18, 74 at 15 (“The allegations in the SAC 2 sufficiently establish cognizable injuries, facially for all individuals forced to waive their Fourth 3 Amendment rights as a condition of receiving falconry licenses, and as-applied to the [falconry 4 license holder plaintiffs].”). Regardless of the distinctions, as discussed below, the court again 5 concludes that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their Fourth Amendment claims and thus the court 6 need not reach the merits of either a facial or as-applied challenge in ruling on the pending 7 motions to dismiss. 8 2. First Amendment 9 The court previously found that plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims in the FAC raised 10 both facial and as-applied challenges and that “in part because Plaintiffs do not attempt to 11 challenge the statute on behalf of others not before the Court, for practical purposes the 12 justiciability inquiry is the same for both their facial and as-applied challenges here.” (Doc. No. 13 59 at 17.) Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the SAC, the relevant language mirrors that of the 14 FAC. See, e.g., Doc. No. 64 ¶ 206 (“On its face and as enforced by Defendants, 50 C.F.R. 15 § 21.29(f)(9)(ii) burdens speech protected by the First Amendment.”); Doc. No. 16 ¶ 146 (same). 16 Accordingly, for the same reasons outlined in the court’s prior order, the court again finds that 17 plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims raise both facial and as-applied challenges and that the 18 justiciability inquiry will be the same for both aspects of this challenge. 19 B. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the SAC Based on Plaintiffs’ Lack of Standing8

20 The court previously granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ Fourth 21 Amendment claims based on lack of standing. (See Doc. No. 59 at 12–15.) Specifically, the

22 court noted that “none of the named Plaintiffs have ever previously been subjected to the 23 unannounced inspections pursuant to the challenged regulations, [and thus] the Court is forced to 24 speculate as to whether unannounced inspections will be conducted on Plaintiffs in the future.”

25 8 Plaintiffs, in part, assert that Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss is actually an improper 26 motion for reconsideration since it attempts to relitigate issues already decided by this court. (See Doc. No. 73 at 11–14.) However, a second amended complaint supersedes both the original and 27 amended complaint and Federal Defendants must present arguments to avoid waiver, even if those arguments were previously addressed by the court in the context of plaintiffs’ previous 28 complaint.

14

1 (Id. at 14.) As for AFC’s associational standing, which relied on the alleged warrantless searches 2 of persons not named as plaintiffs, the court found that AFC did not specify whether these non- 3 plaintiffs were AFC members and regardless, their alleged searches occurred outside of California 4 and years before the challenged regulations went into effect. (Id.) 5 Similarly, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ First Amendment 6 claims as to Katherine and Ariyoshi based on lack of standing. (See Doc. No. 59 at 28–29.) 7 However, the court found that Peter and Timmons “have alleged a present injury or threatened 8 injury sufficient to make their First Amendment claims justiciable,” (id. at 28), and that AFC 9 sufficiently alleged associational standing with regard to the First Amendment claims (id. at 35). 10 Accordingly, defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims as to Peter, 11 Timmons, and AFC were denied on standing grounds. (See id. at 28–29, 35.) 12 1. Standing and Ripeness 13 To maintain an action in federal court, plaintiffs must allege facts showing that they have 14 Article III standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Article III 15 standing consists of three elements: “injury in fact, causation, and a likelihood that a favorable 16 decision will redress the plaintiff’s alleged injury.” Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th 17 Cir. 2010); see also Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (“To establish 18 Article III standing, an injury must be ‘concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly 19 traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.’”) (citations omitted);

20 City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983) (holding that abstract injury is insufficient to 21 establish Article III standing). Where prospective injunctive and declaratory relief is sought,

22 “[t]he plaintiff must show that he ‘has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some 23 direct injury’ as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must 24 be both ‘real and immediate,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101–02 25 (citations omitted); see also Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th Cir. 2007)

26 (“The plaintiff [seeking prospective injunctive relief] must demonstrate that he has suffered or is 27 threatened with a ‘concrete and particularized’ legal harm, coupled with a ‘sufficient likelihood

28 /////

15

1 that he will again be wronged in a similar way.’”) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; Lyons, 461 U.S. 2 at 111). 3 “Although imminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched 4 beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III 5 purposes.” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 n.2) (internal quotation marks 6 omitted). Therefore, the “threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in 7 fact,” and “[a]llegations of possible future injury” are insufficient. Id. (citations omitted) 8 (emphasis in original). Ultimately, “the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of 9 a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication 10 of the particular claims asserted.” Or. Prescription Drug Monitoring Program v. U.S. Drug 11 Enf’t Admin., 860 F.3d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original). 12 The related doctrine of ripeness is a means by which federal courts dispose of matters that 13 are premature for review because the purported injuries are too speculative and may never occur. 14 The ripeness doctrine “is drawn both from Article III limitations on judicial power and from 15 prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction.” Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 16 U.S. 43, 57 n.18 (1993). “[T]he ripeness inquiry contains both a constitutional and a prudential 17 component.” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) 18 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The constitutional component focuses on 19 whether there is sufficient injury, and thus is closely tied to the standing requirement; the

20 prudential component, on the other hand, focuses on whether there is an adequate record upon 21 which to base effective review.” Portman v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 989, 902–03 (9th

22 Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted). The pivotal concern of the ripeness inquiry is “whether the 23 case involves uncertain or contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed 24 may not occur at all.” Richardson v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 124 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 25 1997) (citation omitted). “Where a dispute hangs on future contingencies that may or may not

26 occur, it may be too impermissibly speculative to present a justiciable controversy.” Davis v. 27 Guam, 785 F.3d 1311, 1318 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

28 /////

16

1 “Whether framed as an issue of standing or ripeness, the inquiry is largely the same: 2 whether the issues presented are ‘definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract.’” Wolfson v. 3 Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1139). “In assuring 4 that this jurisdictional prerequisite is satisfied, [courts] consider whether the plaintiffs face ‘a 5 realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement,’ 6 or whether the alleged injury is too ‘imaginary’ or ‘speculative’ to support jurisdiction.” Thomas, 7 220 F.3d at 1139 (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 8 (1979)). “Concrete legal issues require more than mere ‘hypothetical threat[s],’ and where [the 9 court] can ‘only speculate’ as to the specific activities in which a party seeks to engage, [the 10 court] must dismiss a claim as nonjusticiable.” Protectmarriage.com–Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 11 F.3d 827, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing United Pub. Workers of Am. (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell, 330 12 U.S. 75, 89 (1947)). “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case 13 is properly in federal court.” In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th 14 Cir. 2001). 15 2. Counts I, II, and III as to Peter, Katherine, Ariyoshi, and Timmons 16 In the pending motions to dismiss, defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter 17 jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims because the individual plaintiffs lack 18 standing, and because such claims are not ripe. (See Doc. Nos. 66-1 at 12–16, 68-1 at 14–20.) 19 State Defendant specifically argues that the individual plaintiffs have failed to establish that they

20 “have been subjected to, or are facing imminent threat of, involuntary searches under the 21 Unannounced Inspection Provision.” (Doc. No. 66-1 at 14.) The Federal Defendants similarly

22 contend that there is no immediate controversy between them and the individual plaintiffs with 23 respect to the Fourth Amendment claims because the SAC does not contain any allegations that 24 any federal searches have taken place in the last decade and because falconry licensing and 25 enforcement have been delegated to state officials. (See Doc. No. 68-1 at 15–16.)

26 Plaintiffs Peter, Katherine, Ariyoshi, and Timmons again allege injury-in-fact based on 27 their fear of being the target of future searches, asserting that defendants frequently perform

28 unannounced warrantless searches of plaintiffs’ homes, papers, and effects. (See Doc. Nos. 73 at

17

1 22, 74 at 19.) Just as was the case with their FAC, however, these plaintiffs have again failed to 2 allege that they have been personally subjected to searches pursuant to the challenged regulations. 3 (See Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 150–78.) First, the SAC does not contain any allegations indicating that 4 either Katherine or Ariyoshi were ever subjected to a warrantless search or that they face 5 unannounced inspections in the future. (See id. ¶¶ 81–94.) 6 Second, Peter again alleges that he was subjected to a warrantless search and arrest back 7 in 1983 by members of the DFW whereas Timmons reasserts that officers of the California Fish 8 & Game Department approached him at his mother’s property back in 1992. (Id. ¶¶ 69, 100.) As 9 the court previously noted, these events took place years before the challenged regulations took 10 effect on November 7, 2008. See 73 Fed. Reg. 59,448 (Oct. 8, 2008). In their oppositions to the 11 pending motions to dismiss, plaintiffs recognize this timeline but insist that “[t]hese examples 12 provide context to the Court regarding the long running heavy-handed enforcement of federal and 13 state fish and wildlife officers in this area.” (Doc. Nos. 73 at 15 n.8, 74 at 12 n.7.) However, it 14 would be ostrich-like to conclude that two alleged searches conducted in 1983 and 1992 under a 15 different regulatory regime demonstrate, or even suggest, that defendants routinely conduct 16 unannounced searches under the challenged regulations or that the individual plaintiffs face 17 unannounced warrantless searches pursuant to the challenged regulations in the future.9 See 18 Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 753 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[I]t is 19 not the presence or ‘absence of a past injury’ that determines Article III standing to seek

20 injunctive relief; it is the imminent ‘prospect of future injury.’”) (citing Chapman v. Pier 1 21 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 951 (9th Cir. 2011); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 & n.2).

22 /////

23 9 Relying on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, plaintiffs contend that they suffer a 24 cognizable injury every year they renew their falconry licenses because falconers must agree to 25 unannounced warrantless searches in order to secure their licenses. (See Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 156–57.)

However, such an argument goes to the substance of the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim but 26 is irrelevant to the initial determinations of standing or ripeness. See Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101–02 (in seeking prospective injunctive relief, “[t]he plaintiff must show that he ‘has sustained or is 27 immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury’ as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both ‘real and immediate,’ not ‘conjectural’ or 28 ‘hypothetical.’”) (citations omitted).

18

1 Once again, because under the allegations of the SAC Peter, Katherine, Ariyoshi, and 2 Timmons have never been subjected to the unannounced inspections pursuant to the challenged 3 regulations, this court can only speculate as to whether any unannounced inspections will be 4 conducted on them in the future. Accordingly, the court finds that they have not alleged 5 sufficient standing to bring their Fourth Amendment claims and thus, defendants’ motions to 6 dismiss Counts I, II, and III as brought by these plaintiffs will be GRANTED. Because these 7 allegations in the SAC are identical to those in the FAC, the court also finds that granting further 8 leave to amend would be futile and therefore, Counts I and II as to Peter, Ariyoshi, and Timmons, 9 and Count III as to Katherine, will be DISMISSED without further leave to amend. 10 3. Counts I and II as to AFC 11 AFC again argues that by virtue of holding falconry licenses, its members are subject to 12 the warrantless search provisions and have, in fact, been subjected to such searches. (Doc. No. 64 13 ¶¶ 119–20, 128.) Because AFC does not allege an injury to the organization itself, it must meet 14 the requirements of associational standing. See Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Ag. 15 Implement Workers of Am., 477 U.S. 274, 281 (1986). In general, an association has standing to 16 bring suit on behalf of their members when three conditions are met: (1) at least one member 17 would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests it seeks to protect are 18 germane to the organization’s purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested 19 requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. See Hunt v. Wash. State Apple

20 Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 342–43 (1977). 21 First, “[t]he association must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering

22 immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out 23 a justiciable case had the members themselves brought suit.” United Food & Comm. Workers 24 Union Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 552 (1996) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 25 U.S. 490, 511 (1975)). Here, because the individual plaintiffs lack standing to bring Fourth

26 Amendment claims in their own right, AFC cannot rely upon them to meet this first requirement 27 of associational standing.

28 /////

19

1 In addition to the individual plaintiffs, AFC cites two examples of alleged warrantless 2 searches conducted by USFWS agents in Washington State against two of its members, Stephen 3 Layman in 2004 and Lydia Ash in 2009.10 (See Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 137–42; Layman Decl., Doc. No. 4 65-6.) AFC has also provided two examples of alleged warrantless searches conducted by DFW 5 agents against two other members, Fred Seaman in 2016 and Leonardo Velazquez in 2017. (See 6 Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 129–36; Peter Stavrianoudakis Supp. Decl., Doc. No. 65-1 ¶¶ 32–46.) 7 First, as with the alleged searches against Peter and Timmons in 1983 and 1992, the 8 alleged search against Layman in 2004 occurred before the challenged regulations took effect on 9 November 7, 2008. See 73 Fed. Reg. 59,448 (Oct. 8, 2008). Second, although the alleged 10 searches against Ash, Seaman, and Velazquez occurred after the challenged regulations took 11 effect, “it is not the presence or ‘absence of a past injury’ that determines Article III standing to 12 seek injunctive relief; it is the imminent ‘prospect of future injury.’” Ervine, 753 F.3d at 868 13 (citing Chapman, 631 F.3d at 951; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 & n.2). AFC alleges that Ash, Seaman, 14 and Velazquez each were subjected to a search in the past, but “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct 15 does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if 16 unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102 (quoting 17 O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495–96 (1974)). The fact that these individuals were once 18 subjected to an alleged search is insufficient to satisfy the “certainly impending” requirement or 19 to demonstrate that they will be subject to searches in the future. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409.

20 Even if Ash, Seaman, and Velazquez were proceeding as individual plaintiffs, one past search 21 would be insufficient to confer standing on AFC. Because these three individuals and the

22 individual named plaintiffs lack standing in their own right to bring a Fourth Amendment claim, 23 AFC cannot satisfy the first requirement of associational standing. In light of this conclusion, the 24 court need not analyze the remaining two elements of associational standing. 25 /////

26 27 10 Because Layman and Ash hold Washington State falconry licenses, these alleged searches cannot be used to support standing against the State Defendant in this case. (See Doc. No. 66-1 at 28 7 n.4.)

20

1 Accordingly, defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to AFC’s Fourth Amendment 2 claims will be GRANTED. Because plaintiffs’ allegations set forth in their SAC are substantially 3 similar to those appearing in their FAC, the court finds that granting further leave to amend would 4 be futile and thus, Counts I and II as to AFC will be DISMISSED without further leave to 5 amend.11 6 4. Counts IV, V, VI, and VII as to Peter and Timmons12 7 In the pending motion to dismiss, the Federal Defendants argue that there is no case or 8 controversy with respect to the First Amendment claims brought by plaintiffs Peter and Timmons 9 because the Federal Defendants do not issue falconry licenses in California and licensing and 10 enforcement authority has been transferred to the state of California. (Doc. No. 68-1 at 20.) The 11 Federal Defendants contend that “[a]ny relief this Court might grant against [them] will have no 12 effect on [their] falconry licensing or enforcement operations, because they do not conduct any 13 such operations.” (Doc. No. 77 at 5–6.) 14 “[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to 15 restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. 16 ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002). “Because ‘[c]onstitutional challenges based on the First 17 Amendment present unique standing considerations,’ plaintiffs may establish an injury in fact 18 without first suffering a direct injury from the challenged restriction.” Lopez, 630 F.3d at 785 19 (quoting Ariz. Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir.

20 2003)). “When an individual is subject to [a threat of enforcement], an actual arrest, prosecution, 21 or other enforcement action is not a prerequisite to challenging the law.” Susan B. Anthony List v.

22 Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014) (citations omitted). Here, because plaintiffs are not currently 23 subject to an enforcement action, they are raising a pre-enforcement challenge to the regulations

24 11 25 Because all plaintiffs lack standing to bring their Fourth Amendment claims, the court need not consider their substantive Fourth Amendment arguments or notices of supplemental authority.

26 (See note 9 above; Doc. Nos. 80, 86.) Accordingly, defendants’ motions to dismiss due to plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim as to their Fourth Amendment claims will be DENIED as moot.

27 12 The SAC excludes Katherine and Ariyoshi from these counts. (See Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 191, 202, 28 213, 225, 236.)

21

1 that restrict speech. Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1058. 2 In a pre-enforcement case, “the plaintiff may meet constitutional standing requirements by 3 ‘demonstrat[ing] a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s 4 operation or enforcement.” Lopez, 630 F.3d at 785 (quoting Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 298). “To show 5 such a ‘realistic danger,’ a plaintiff must ‘allege[] an intention to engage in a course of conduct 6 arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and . . . a credible 7 threat of prosecution thereunder.’” Id. Although the standard is less stringent, pre-enforcement 8 plaintiffs “must still show an actual or imminent injury to a legally protected interest.” Lopez, 9 630 F.3d at 785 (citation omitted). 10 To determine if pre-enforcement plaintiffs face a credible threat of adverse state action 11 sufficient to establish standing, the Ninth Circuit has identified three appropriate related 12 inquiries.13 Id. at 786.

13 First, we have considered whether pre-enforcement plaintiffs have failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the government will 14 enforce the challenged law against them. Second, we have considered whether the plaintiffs have failed to establish, with some 15 degree of concrete detail, that they intend to violate the challenged law. We have also considered a third factor, whether the challenged 16 law is inapplicable to the plaintiffs, either by its terms or as interpreted by the government. Such inapplicability weighs against 17 both the plaintiffs’ claims that they intend to violate the law, and also their claims that the government intends to enforce the law against 18 them. 19 Id. “Self-censorship is a constitutionally recognized injury.” Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1059 (citing

20 Va. v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S. 383, 393 (1988) (holding self-censorship is “a harm that 21 can be realized even without an actual prosecution”)). In pre-enforcement cases, the actual or

22 ///// 23 ///// 24 /////

25 13 26 In their pending motion to dismiss, Federal Defendants cite the factors set forth in Wolfson, which are considered in determining when a claimed threat of prosecution is credible. (See Doc.

27 No. 68-1 at 13–14 (citing 616 F.3d at 1058)). However, the decision in Lopez was published almost four months after Wolfson. Nevertheless, because the relevant factors as articulated by the 28 Ninth Circuit in Wolfson and Lopez are similar, the parties’ arguments will be considered below.

22

1 imminent injury is often self-censorship.14 Bayless, 320 F.3d at 1006. 2 A government’s preliminary efforts to enforce a speech restriction or its past enforcement 3 of a restriction is strong, though not dispositive, evidence that the pre-enforcement plaintiffs face 4 a credible threat of adverse state action. Lopez, 630 F.3d at 786. A history of past prosecution of 5 parties similarly situated to the plaintiffs will also support a credible threat of enforcement. Id. at 6 786–87. On the other hand, “general threat[s] by officials to enforce those laws which they are 7 charged to administer” do not create the necessary injury in fact. Id. at 787; Thomas, 220 F.3d at 8 1139 (“We have held that neither the mere existence of a proscriptive statute nor a generalized 9 threat of prosecution satisfies the ‘case or controversy’ requirement.”). “Mere allegations of 10 subjective chill are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a 11 threat of specific future harm.” Lopez, 630 F.3d at 787 (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 Here, the allegations of plaintiffs Peter and Timmons in the SAC are identical to those 13 previously considered by this court. (See Doc. Nos. 17-2 ¶¶ 36, 38; 17-4 ¶¶ 13–16.) For 14 example, Peter alleges that he has repeatedly declined to give presentations because of the content 15 and compensation restrictions, and that if he “had the chance to earn money with Ares and take 16 him out onto a movie set for a shoot, [he] would absolutely do it,” but he has declined to pursue 17 such opportunities because of the regulations in effect. (Doc. No. 17-2 ¶¶ 36, 38.) Similarly, 18 Timmons alleges that he was told on the phone by DFW staff that he was not allowed to give 19 educational presentations or to speak to the public about his birds; that he previously performed

20 abatement services at a resort, but DFW advised him that he could not answer questions from 21 resort guests about his birds; and that he was told that if he wanted to schedule time for a guest to

22 come out to speak about his birds, that would be in violation of the regulations. (Doc. No. 17-4 23 ¶¶ 13–16.) 24

25 14 Plaintiffs do not address the merits of the Federal Defendants’ First Amendment standing arguments, but rather argue that this court has already found that Peter, Timmons, and AFC 26 pleaded valid First Amendment claims and thus the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss is actually an improper motion for reconsideration. (See Doc. Nos. 73 at 11, 77 at 6.) As explained 27 above, the SAC supersedes the previous complaints, and therefore the court must determine whether plaintiffs have standing to bring their First Amendment claims based on the allegations 28 presented in the SAC. (See note 8 above.)

23

1 Because the allegations presented in the SAC are identical to those in the FAC, the court 2 turns to the reasoning outlined in its prior order. (See Doc. No. 59 at 20–23.) Instead of concrete 3 examples of past enforcement, Peter has only provided allegations of self-censorship, which on its 4 own does not support a finding of a credible threat of enforcement. On the other hand, the 5 examples alleged by Timmons are that he was specifically warned by DFW that the challenged 6 regulations would be enforced, and such allegations are sufficient to support a credible threat of 7 enforcement. As to whether Peter and Timmons alleged a credible threat of enforcement based 8 on the federal and/or state regulations, the court previously stated:

9 Nothing in the record suggests similar enforcement threats have been made by any employee of the Federal Defendants. However, the 10 standing inquiry is whether each Plaintiff has standing to bring each claim in the case. Here, there is no question that the state regulation 11 incorporates the federal regulations by reference. 14 C.C.R.

§ 670(a)(4) (“Applicable regulations adopted by the U.S. Secretary 12 of the Interior pursuant to the [MBTA] and published in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21 (Revised 07/02/2015), 13 hereinafter referred to as 50 CFR 21, are hereby incorporated and made a part of these regulations.”). For purposes of this motion, the 14 Court assumes DFW has authority to and does enforce those incorporated regulations. The Court further finds that, for purposes 15 of this motion, a Plaintiff who is able to establish a credible threat of enforcement by DFW may challenge all of the regulations DFW 16 claims authority to enforce. 17 (Doc. No. 59 at 22 n.14.)

18 While there may be a credible threat as to the enforcement of the state and federal 19 regulations against Peter and Timmons, the question remains, by which defendants? See Bronson

20 v. Swenson, 500 F.3d 1099, 1110 (10th Cir. 2007) (“It is well-established that when a plaintiff 21 brings a pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of a particular statutory provision, the

22 causation element of standing requires the named defendants to possess authority to enforce the 23 complained-of provision.”). Here, the Federal Defendants argue that, even though the state 24 regulations may have incorporated the federal regulations, their “authority over federal falconry 25 licensing has been specifically ‘terminate[d]’ in favor of the state program.” (Doc. No. 68-1 at 24

26 (citing 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(b)(3)); see also 78 Fed. Reg. 72,830-01 (Dec. 4, 2013) (delegating 27 falconry permitting authority to California after concluding that California’s regulations comply

28 with the federal regulations and “terminat[ing]” the federal falconry permitting program in

24

1 California).) The Federal Defendants further contend that in addition to the absence of 2 allegations that “Federal Defendants have ever threatened any plaintiff with adverse actions for 3 violating the challenged regulations,” “there are no facts suggesting that the Federal Defendants 4 will, or even could, take action to enforce the challenged regulations against the plaintiffs or 5 anyone else.” (Id. at 23; see Crum Decl., Doc. No. 27-1 ¶ 5 (“USFWS does not conduct any 6 licensing enforcement with respect to 50 C.F.R. §§ 21.29(f)(8) and (9). . . . [S]uch matters are 7 monitored by the California state agency pursuant to its own regulations.”); Millsap Decl., Doc. 8 No. 68-2 ¶ 9 (“California likewise assumed control of falconry licenses in its jurisdiction on 9 January 1, 2014. After those dates, USFWS has not issued any falconry licenses to individuals 10 within the jurisdiction of [California] and has not conducted license enforcement operations in 11 [California].”).) Federal Defendants also point out that although “[t]he regulations do provide a 12 regulatory avenue by which the Federal Defendants hypothetically could reacquire control over 13 falconry licensing operations and enforcement[,] . . . that process can only be triggered by 14 complaints from either the public or law enforcement.” (Doc. No. 68-1 at 19, 23 (citing 50 15 C.F.R. § 21.29(b)(4)–(5)).) “Even then, the regulatory process would last more than two years, 16 and it may or may not result in a state’s falconry licensing authority being transferred back to the 17 Federal Defendants.” (Id.) 18 Plaintiffs counter that “any enforcement of the state regulations is required by the federal 19 regulations.” (Doc. No. 73 at 11; see also 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(b)(1)(i) (“A State . . . that wishes to

20 allow falconry must establish laws and regulations . . . that meet the standards established in this 21 section.”).) Additionally, although USFWS “may have delegated some day-to-day enforcement

22 authority to [DFW], . . . it retains authority to enforce all the regulations challenged here, 23 including ensuring that [DFW’s] enforcement of the state and federal regulations is in compliance 24 with the federal regulations.” (Doc. No. 73 at 12 (citing 50 C.F.R. §§ 21.29(b)(4)(vi) (stating that 25 USFWS “may review the administration of an approved State’s . . . falconry program if

26 complaints from the public or law enforcement investigations indicate the need for a review” and 27 such review may involve “[r]eviewing laws to determine if they meet the requirements of this

28 section”), (b)(8) (“Suspension or revocation of a falconry permit is the responsibility of the

25

1 State . . . However, compliance with all provisions of these regulations remains under the 2 purview of [USFWS].”).) Finally, plaintiffs argue that “if [DFW] does not follow the federal 3 regulations, [USFWS] will suspend state permits and Plaintiffs would be required to either 4 transfer their birds to other parties, release them into the wild, or euthanize them.” (Doc. No. 73 5 at 12 (citing 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(b)(v)).) 6 Plaintiffs have not alleged any enforcement threats that have been made by the Federal 7 Defendants specifically, nor have they alleged a history of past enforcement of the speech 8 regulations by the Federal Defendants. Additionally, licensing and enforcement authority has 9 been transferred to DFW and, as a result, USFWS has not conducted any enforcement 10 proceedings in California and seems unlikely to do so. (See Millsap Decl., Doc. No. 68-2 ¶ 9.) 11 Plaintiffs contend that, despite the Federal Defendants’ transfer of authority, they still 12 retain authority to enforce all of the challenged speech regulations in California and to ensure that 13 DFW’s enforcement of those regulations is in compliance with the federal regulations. (See Doc. 14 No. 73 at 12.) Even accepting plaintiffs’ argument as true, however, the process through which 15 the Federal Defendants could regain authority over California’s falconry program would take 16 time and requires following a number of regulatory steps. See 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(b)(4)–(5). First, 17 USFWS would need to receive “complaints from the public or law enforcement investigations 18 [that] indicate the need for a review or for revisions to [California’s] . . . laws . . .” 50 C.F.R. 19 § 21.29(b)(4). If this occurs, USFWS may suspend or propose to suspend approval of

20 California’s falconry program if USFWS determines that California’s program is deficient. Id. 21 § 21.29(b)(5)(i). In any event, should USFWS determine that suspension of the California

22 falconry program is still warranted, USFWS “will honor all falconry permits in [California] for 2 23 years from the date of [the] final notification of suspension of certification.” Id. § 21.29(b)(5)(v) 24 (emphasis added). 25 Under the doctrine of ripeness, the question is “whether the case involves uncertain or

26 contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” 27 Richardson, 124 F.3d at 1160 (citation omitted); see also Davis, 785 F.3d at 1318 (“Where a

28 dispute hangs on future contingencies that may or may not occur, it may be too impermissibly

26

1 speculative to present a justiciable controversy.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 As reviewed above, a number of regulatory steps would need to be taken before falconry 3 permitting and enforcement authority is transferred from DFW back to USFWS. Plaintiffs have 4 not alleged or provided any factual assertions indicating that any of these steps are likely to occur, 5 including whether USFWS will suspend or terminate California’s falconry program in the event 6 that the challenged regulations are invalidated. Additionally, “the regulatory process would last 7 more than two years, and it may or may not result in a state’s falconry licensing authority being 8 transferred back to the Federal Defendants.” (Doc. No. 68-1 at 19.) 9 Likewise, to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of standing, the “threatened injury must 10 be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact,” and “[a]llegations of possible future injury” 11 are insufficient. Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Even under 12 the less-stringent pre-enforcement standard, “plaintiffs must still show an actual or imminent 13 injury to a legally protected interest.” Lopez, 630 F.3d at 785 (emphasis added). If all of the 14 regulatory steps are completed and USFWS were to decide to suspend California’s falconry 15 program, USFWS would still honor the state falconry permits for two years before requiring the 16 transfer or disposition of raptors held under those permits. See 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(b)(5)(v). In 17 light of this two-year grace period under the applicable regulations and the time it takes for the 18 regulatory process to be completed, plaintiffs have failed to show an imminent or certainly- 19 impending injury at the hands of the Federal Defendants.

20 In sum, plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege a credible threat of enforcement of the 21 speech regulations by the Federal Defendants. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Counts IV, V,

22 VI, and VII as to Peter and Timmons brought by the Federal Defendants’ will be GRANTED. 23 Because plaintiffs’ allegations in the SAC are identical to those made in the FAC, the court finds 24 that granting further leave to amend would be futile and therefore, Counts IV, V, VI, and VII as 25 brought by plaintiffs Peter and Timmons will be DISMISSED without leave to amend as to the

26 Federal Defendants. 27 /////

28 /////

27

1 5. Counts IV, V, VI, and VII as to AFC 2 Because AFC again does not allege injury to the organization itself, it must also meet the 3 three requirements to have associational standing. See Hunt, 432 U.S. at 342–43. AFC alleges 4 that certain of its members have: (1) declined to create photographs, movies, commercials, and 5 other expressions; (2) modified the content of their educational presentations; or (3) declined to 6 perform educational presentations and engage in other expression due to defendants’ active 7 enforcement of the regulations complained of in this action. (Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 144–47.) While the 8 alleged self-censorship by AFC’s members can be a cognizable harm for purposes of standing, 9 see Am. Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S. at 393, as noted above “[t]he self-censorship door to 10 standing does not open for every plaintiff,” Getman, 328 F.3d at 1095. The potential plaintiff 11 must have an actual and well-founded fear that the law will be enforced against him or her. Id. 12 Peter and Timmons are AFC members, but as discussed above, the court has concluded 13 that Peter and Timmons lack standing to challenge the regulations on the grounds raised in 14 Counts IV, V, VI, and VII of the SAC against the Federal Defendants. Because AFC cannot 15 demonstrate that at least one member would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, see 16 Hunt, 432 U.S. at 342–43, the court finds that the first element of associational standing is not 17 satisfied by AFC here. The court therefore need not analyze the remaining two elements of 18 associational standing. 19 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss with respect to AFC’s First Amendment claims

20 against the Federal Defendants will be GRANTED. Because the allegations in the SAC are 21 substantially similar with respect to this claim to those appearing in the FAC, the court finds that

22 granting further leave to amend would be futile. Therefore, Counts IV, V, VI, and VII as brought 23 by plaintiff AFC will also be DISMISSED without leave to amend as to the Federal Defendants.15 24 ///// 25 /////

26 15 Because all plaintiffs lack standing to bring their First Amendment claims against the Federal 27 Defendants, the court need not consider the substantive First Amendment arguments raised in the Federal Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure 28 to state a claim as to the First Amendment claims will be DENIED as moot.

28

1 6. Count IX 2 The APA allows persons “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action” to file suit on 3 that basis. 5 U.S.C. § 702. For purposes of the APA, “agency” means “each authority of the 4 Government of the United States . . . .” Id. § 701(b)(1). Therefore, “[b]y its own terms the APA 5 does not apply to state agencies.” Sw. Williamson Cnty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033, 6 1035 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Gilliam v. Miller, 973 F.2d 760, 764 (9th Cir. 1992) (declining 7 review under the APA because the defendant was acting in a state, not a federal, capacity). Thus, 8 the State Defendant seeks dismissal of Count XI on grounds that “California regulations are not 9 subject to challenge under the federal APA.” (Doc. No. 66-1 at 28 (citing Doc. No. 59 at 47 10 n.17).) Plaintiffs do not address State Defendant’s contention, but their opposition to the pending 11 motion indicates that they only “allege that the federal regulations violate the [APA].” (Doc. No. 12 74 at 8 (citing Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 242–47).) Accordingly, Count IX will be DISMISSED both with 13 respect to the California regulations and to the extent the claim is brought against the State 14 Defendant. 15 Regarding the federal regulations, because plaintiffs lack standing to bring their 16 substantive Fourth Amendment claims, they therefore also lack standing to bring any APA based 17 challenge to the unannounced inspection provisions of those regulations. (See supra Parts B.2– 18 3.) Therefore, Count IX will be DISMISSED as to the Federal Defendants with respect to 19 plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims based on 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(d)(2)(ii).

20 However, the court previously denied Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ 21 APA challenge with respect to Peter, Timmons, and AFC’s First Amendment claims, finding that

22 the Federal Defendants had failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating “whether it is 23 reasonable for [USFWS] to interpret its statutory authority to regulate ‘possession’ of migratory 24 birds so as to permit the promulgation of the challenged regulations.” (Doc. No. 59 at 48.) In 25 their pending motion to dismiss the SAC, Federal Defendants state that they will “address Count

26 IX in a motion for summary judgment based on the administrative record at the appropriate time.” 27 (Doc. No. 68-1 at 13 n.4.) Accordingly, Count IX with respect to the First Amendment claims

28 /////

29

1 brought by plaintiffs Peter, Timmons, and AFC based on 50 C.F.R. §§ 21.29(f)(8)(iv)–(v) and 2 (f)(9)(i)–(ii) will be allowed to proceed at this time against Federal Defendants. 3 C. Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction16 4 1. Fourth Amendment 5 Following the court’s prior order, plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary 6 injunction, seeking to “enjoin[] California and federal regulations that violate their Fourth 7 Amendment rights.” (Doc. No. 65-1 at 9.) However, for the reasons explained above plaintiffs 8 lack standing to bring their Fourth Amendment claims and thus they are unlikely to succeed on 9 those claims. (See supra Parts B.2–3.) Because the first prong of the Winter preliminary 10 injunction test (i.e., likelihood of success) fails as to the Fourth Amendment claims, the court 11 need not address the remaining three prongs of the applicable standard. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ 12 motion for preliminary injunction with respect to Counts I, II, and III will be DENIED. 13 2. First Amendment 14 In its prior order, the court directed defendants to submit supplemental briefing on “the 15 nature of the government interest involved and how the three categories of speech restrictions 16 (falconers’ presentations and media, 17 compensation, and commercial speech) are drawn to meet 17 such interest.” (Doc. No. 59 at 53.) The court also directed defendants to address the balance of 18 equities and public interest prongs of the Winter test. (Id.) Defendants have filed supplemental 19 briefing, and plaintiffs have filed a response thereto.18 (Doc. Nos. 67, 69, 78.) The court

20 will now re-examine plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as to their First Amendment 21 claims in light of the additional briefing.

22 /////

23 16 Plaintiffs do not premise either of their preliminary injunction motions on their APA claim.

24 (See generally Doc. Nos. 17, 65.)

25 17 “Media” refers to movies, advertisements, entertainment, or other commercial ventures. See 26 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(9)(i)–(ii).

27 18 In his supplemental brief, the State Defendant defers to the Federal Defendants on this point, stating that they are “in a better position to explain the interests behind the restrictions . . .” (Doc.

28 No. 67 at 3.)

30

1 a. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 2 Defendants were first directed to address whether the restrictions on falconers’ 3 presentations and media and the compensation restrictions meet strict scrutiny, specifically 4 whether the restrictions are narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s interest in protecting 5 the native raptor species. (Doc. No. 59 at 50–51.) The court also identified a similar issue 6 regarding the commercial speech restrictions and directed defendants to explain how those 7 restrictions are not more extensive than necessary to serve the government interest involved. (Id. 8 at 53.) 9 In response, the Federal Defendants have repeated their argument that because they “have 10 no role in issuing or enforcing the terms of falconry licenses in” California or other relevant 11 states, the issuance of a preliminary injunction “would have no effect on the day-to-day 12 operations of the Federal Defendants . . .” (Doc. No. 69 at 6.) However, if the court reaches the 13 merits of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims, then the Federal Defendants state they do “not take 14 the position that the challenged regulations satisfy strict scrutiny insofar as they apply to non- 15 commercial speech.”19 (Id. (referring to the restrictions on falconers’ presentation and media and 16 the compensation restrictions of 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(8)(iv)–(v)).) On the other hand, Federal 17 Defendants do argue that the commercial speech regulations of 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(9)(i)–(ii) 18 satisfy the four-step Central Hudson test. (See id. at 3–6.) Because the Federal Defendants have 19 addressed only the commercial speech regulations, the court limits its analysis to the commercial

20 speech inquiry. 21 Commercial speech is “expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker

22 and its audience.” Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 23 557, 561 (1980). Such speech is protected by the First Amendment, but to a lesser degree than 24 other types of speech. Id. Courts determine if a law regulates commercial speech by inquiring

25 19 Because the Federal Defendants chose not to defend or address the non-commercial speech 26 regulations, plaintiffs state that they are “entitled to immediate entry of a permanent injunction and entry of a final judgment with respect to those claims.” (Doc. No. 78 at 8–9.) The court is 27 unaware, however, of any authority that would permit such an action in the absence of a properly noticed motion. Accordingly, neither a permanent injunction nor an entry of judgment as to the 28 non-commercial speech regulations will be issued by the court at this time.

31

1 whether the speech does no more than propose a commercial transaction. Bd. of Trustees of State 2 Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 473–74 (1989) (citing Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Citizens 3 Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976)); see also Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 4 F.3d 808, 818–19 (9th Cir. 2013). Where commercial speech is “inextricably intertwined” with 5 otherwise fully protected speech, the commercial speech may lose its commercial character. See 6 Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796 (1988). The court evaluates 7 restrictions on commercial speech applying the four-part test set forth in Central Hudson:

8 (1) if the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity, then it merits First Amendment scrutiny as a 9 threshold matter; in order for the restriction to withstand such scrutiny, (2) [t]he State must assert a substantial interest to be 10 achieved by restrictions on commercial speech; (3) the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved; and (4) it must not 11 be more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. 12 Valle Del Sol, 709 F.3d at 820–21 (citations omitted).20

13 Here, the parties do not dispute that the government has an interest in “conserv[ing] wild 14 native raptor populations, consistent with the United States’ treaty obligations and implementing 15 legislation, including by regulating commercialization of native raptors.” (Doc. Nos. 69 at 4, 78 16 at 11; see also Doc. No. 59 at 43 (“The Court acknowledges Defendants have a substantial 17 interest in protecting native raptors.”).) Instead, the parties’ dispute whether the commercial 18 speech regulations directly advance that interest and whether those regulations are more extensive 19 than necessary to achieve that interest, i.e., the third and fourth prongs of the Central Hudson test.

20 ///// 21 /////

22 20 The Federal Defendants argue that portions of 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(9)(i)–(ii) “encompass some 23 non-speech activity in addition to commercial speech, [and thus] those portions of the regulations do not implicate the First Amendment.” (Doc. No. 69 at 3–4 (stating that “commercial ventures 24 that are not related to falconry” and “commercial entertainment” are “not necessarily entitled to 25 First Amendment protection”).) Additionally, the Federal Defendants contend that “some of the activities plaintiffs seek to undertake, in fact, are not speech[,]” such as Timmons’ indication that 26 he wants “to take paying clients out with [him] on falconry hunting expeditions with [his] birds.”

(Id. at 3 (citing Doc. No. 17-4 ¶ 24).) While the Federal Defendants are correct in suggesting that 27 the challenged regulations may encompass some non-speech activities, because plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief will be denied, the court finds it unnecessary to parse out those portions of the 28 regulations at this time.

32

1 “The third part of the Central Hudson test asks whether the speech restriction directly and 2 materially advances the asserted governmental interest.” Greater New Orleans Broadcasting 3 Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 188 (1999). “This burden is not satisfied by mere 4 speculation or conjecture; rather, a governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on 5 commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will 6 in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” Id. (quoting Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 770–71 7 (1993)). “The fourth part of the test complements the direct-advancement inquiry of the third, 8 asking whether a speech restriction is not more extensive than necessary to serve the interests that 9 support it.” Id. “The [Supreme] Court has also clarified Central Hudson’s fourth factor by 10 making clear that it does not require satisfaction of a ‘least-restrictive-means standard,’ but rather 11 requires ‘a fit between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends, []a 12 fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable[,] . . . a means narrowly tailored to achieve the 13 desired objective.’” Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Prieto, 861 F.3d 839, 846, 848 n.10 (9th Cir. 14 2017) (quoting Fox, 492 U.S. at 477, 480) (alterations in original). 15 As to whether the commercial speech regulations at issue here directly advance the 16 government’s interest in protecting wild native raptor populations, the Federal Defendants assert 17 as follows:

18 The commercial regulations challenged by plaintiffs directly advance that interest by limiting the demand for taking wild raptors 19 to use in commercial endeavors. Allowing commercial use of native falconry raptors would increase take of those raptors in two ways.

20 First, additional raptors would be taken pursuant to valid permits.

And second, the availability of commercial opportunities for raptor 21 use would increase unlicensed take by individuals without permits.

The challenged regulations directly prevent those sources of pressure 22 on wild raptor populations from developing. 23 (Doc. No. 69 at 4 (internal citations omitted) (citing Millsap Decl., Doc. No. 68-2 ¶¶ 11, 17).) In

24 support of their argument, the Federal Defendants provide a declaration from Brian Millsap, the 25 National Raptor Coordinator in USFWS’s Migratory Bird Management, Migratory Bird Program.

26 (See generally Millsap Decl., Doc. No. 68-2.) Mr. Millsap generally concludes that creating 27 additional commercial opportunities related to falconry will increase threats to wild, native

28 raptors. (Id.) But, because plaintiffs peck away at the details of Mr. Millsap’s reasoning, the

33

1 court will reproduce the most pertinent parts of his declaration here:

2 Included in the federal falconry regulations are prohibitions against the use of falconry raptors in commercial activities, including in 3 commercials, commercial ventures, commercial entertainment, advertisements, as a representation of businesses or other entities, 4 and for promotion or endorsement of any products, merchandise, goods, services, meetings, or fairs. See 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(9)(i), 5 (ii). An exception is made for such activities to the extent they relate to falconry products or nonprofit falconry organizations. See id.

6 As noted, one of the guiding principles of the MBTA has been to 7 prevent commercialization of protected bird species, including falconry raptors. The restrictions on commercial speech set out in 8 § 21.29(f)(9) are intended to prevent a commercial market for falconry raptors from developing. If falconry raptors were permitted 9 to be used in those ways, the demand for falconry raptors would increase, potentially quite substantially. An increase in that demand 10 would result in additional protected raptors being captured from the wild, which could place downward pressure on the native bird 11 populations that the MBTA is designed to protect. 12 It is difficult to estimate precisely how much of an effect commercialization might have on protected wild raptor populations.

13 Wild raptor population estimates are difficult to obtain; many of the species used in falconry are relatively shy and reclusive, and 14 populations of different species tend to change over time, such that they cannot be easily counted with regularity. Moreover, any effect 15 of commercialization would likely have different effects on different species. The difficulty associated with predicting the negative 16 effects on bird species is a major reason the USFWS conservatively manages such species.

17 ...

18 If the Court were to issue an injunction prohibiting state officials 19 from enforcing the regulatory framework challenged in this law suit [sic], the consequences to native raptor populations would be 20 impossible to predict but would certainly be greater than under the current regulatory paradigm. I conducted the scientific analyses that 21 underlie the 2008 falconry regulations, and these analyses concluded that falconry, as currently practiced, was extremely unlikely to result 22 in levels of take that would be harmful to wild populations of any species of raptor.21 See [Millsap & Allen, supra note 21, at 1392– 23 1400]. . . . Expanding the scope of falconry to include for-profit commercial activities unrelated to falconry would increase the 24 demand for falconry permits and raptors, potentially significantly.

This would occur because individuals not interested in practicing the 25

26 21 Millsap’s research “used data for 2003 and 2004 from [the USFWS’s permit-tracking database] to assess the number of raptors removed from the wild by species for the purposes of 27 [these] analyses.” B.A. Millsap & G.T. Allen, Effects of Falconry Harvest on Wild Raptor Populations in the United States: Theoretical Considerations and Management 28 Recommendations, 34 WILDLIFE SOC’Y BULLETIN 1392, 1398 (2006) (“Millsap & Allen”).

34

1 sport of falconry, but rather in acquiring and using raptors in for-

profit commercial ventures, would seek permits. Predicting and 2 managing take of raptors for falconry under this new paradigm would be entirely different, and the USFWS currently lacks the rigorous 3 data on raptor populations that would be required to manage take at that increased scale. The USFWS would necessarily have to 4 undertake a new set of analyses to assess that risk to the degree possible, and then to revise the regulations to address that new, 5 higher level of risk. This would also have significant consequences to how the USFWS viewed and managed raptor propagation, because 6 the new and greater commercial demand for raptors would expand the potential negative consequences on raptor populations from this 7 activity as well. This would all have significant negative consequences on the practice of the sport of falconry because much 8 of the flexibility added in the 2008 regulations would need to be removed, and additional safeguards not needed previously would 9 have to be enacted. . . . States and the USFWS would have to carefully consider the cost-benefit of the added administrative 10 burden necessary to implement such a system. In addition to an increase in legal take, the USFWS would have to consider the 11 increased incentive for unlicensed take of wild raptors for both falconry and raptor propagation. Illegal take of raptors for sale of 12 feathers on the black market is already a problem that USFWS works to control; creating additional commercial opportunities for using 13 wild raptors would only increase that threat.

14 (Id. ¶¶ 10–12, 17 (emphasis added).) 15 Plaintiffs argue that the Federal Defendants are merely speculating as to whether lifting 16 the commercial speech regulations would lead to increased legal and illegal wild take, and that 17 the Federal Defendants’ evidence, specifically Millsap’s declaration, contradicts their own 18 arguments in at least three ways. (See Doc. No. 78 at 12, 14–16.) The court will first attempt to 19 articulate plaintiffs’ three arguments before addressing them on their merits. 20 First, the Federal Defendants express their concern that “[a]llowing commercial use of 21 native falconry raptors would increase take of those raptors” either by persons with valid permits 22 or unlicensed take by persons without permits. (Doc. No. 69 at 4.) In support of this concern, 23 Millsap declares that his own analysis published in 2006 concluded that “falconry, as currently 24 practiced, was extremely unlikely to result in” harmful levels of wild take. (Millsap Decl., Doc. 25 No. 68-2 ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs point out that the falconry regulations in place when Millsap wrote his 26 2006 paper did not contain any of the challenged speech restrictions. (Doc. No. 78 at 14–15); 27 compare 50 C.F.R. § 21.29 (effective June 15, 2005 to Nov. 6, 2008), with id. (effective Jan. 1, 28 2016 (current)). Plaintiffs in making this observation appear to be suggesting that commercial

35

1 speech regulations are not needed because: (1) none were in place when Millsap conducted his 2 research in 2006; and (2) Millsap concluded that falconry as practiced in 2006 was “extremely 3 unlikely to result in levels of take that would be harmful to wild populations of any species of 4 raptor.” 5 Second, the Federal Defendants assert that “the availability of commercial opportunities 6 for raptor use would increase unlicensed take by individuals without permits.” (Doc. No. 69 at 4 7 (citing Millsap Decl., Doc. No. 68-2 ¶¶ 11, 17) (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs, however, point to 8 Millsap’s research which found that, under the pre-2008 regulations that did not include any 9 express speech restrictions, “[s]ome wild take may go unreported each year, but we believe such 10 actions are infrequent enough to be considered inconsequential in the context of this analysis.” 11 (Doc. No. 78 at 14–15); Millsap & Allen, supra note 21, at 1393. 12 Thirdly, and relatedly, the Federal Defendants express concern over a potential increase in 13 valid permits; they contend that “[a]lthough the precise impact on individual species is difficult to 14 predict, even a moderate increase in the number of permitted falconers could have potentially 15 significant consequences.” (Doc. No. 69 at 7.) Once again, plaintiffs point to Millsap’s own 16 research, which included the following statement:

17 [E]stimated harvest rates in 2003 and 2004 for all raptor species in the United States were well below the recommended thresholds. The 18 primary harvest regulation mechanism in effect in these years was a 2-bird-per-falconer limit on the number of raptors that could be 19 removed from the wild each year, in conjunction with an overall maximum possession limit of 3 birds.22 Thus, even with some 4,250 20 licensed falconers in the United States (USFWS files) and a potential harvest of up to 8,500 raptors, harvest rates were extremely 21 conservative under this regulatory framework; only 11.7% of the recommended allowable take occurred.

22

23 (Doc. No. 78 at 14–15); Millsap & Allen, supra note 21, at 1398–99 (“Only if the potential for 24 impacts increase, either through substantial growth in the number of licensed falconers or an 25

26 22 Under the current regulation, a General Falconer “may possess no more than 3 raptors[,]” 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(c)(2)(ii)(F), and a Master Falconer “may possess no more than 5 wild raptors, 27 including golden eagles[,]” id. § 21.29(c)(2)(iii)(D). However, a Master Falconer “may possess any number of captive-bred raptors[,]” but only to “train them in the pursuit of wild game and use 28 them in hunting.” Id. § 21.29(c)(2)(iii)(E).

36

1 increase in harvest rates for a particular species, would additional safeguards be necessary.”). It 2 appears that Millsap attributes the low harvest rates among licensed falconers to the limitations on 3 the number of birds each falconer may possess, limitations that are still in place under the current 4 regulation albeit with those numbers having increased since 2006. (See Doc. No. 78 at 15.) 5 In sum, plaintiffs suggest by way of the three arguments articulated above that Millsap’s 6 declaration demonstrates that restrictions on the commercial use of falcons are unnecessary 7 because the practice of falconry in the years pre-dating the 2008 commercial speech restrictions at 8 issue in this case posed no threat to wild raptors. The Federal Defendants attempted to address 9 this contention at the hearing on these motions, clarifying that Millsap’s declaration and his 2006 10 research article were focused on falconry practices undertaken pursuant to the limited federal 11 regulatory definition of falconry, which did not encompass any commercial activity. (See Millsap 12 Decl., Doc. No. 68-2 ¶ 7); Millsap & Allen, supra note 21, at 1393 (“‘Harvest’ and ‘take’ in this 13 paper refer to the capture and removal from the wild of raptors for use in falconry.”) (emphasis 14 added). Specifically, federal regulations define falconry as the “caring for and training raptors for 15 pursuit of wild game,” “hunting wild game with raptors,” “taking [] raptors from the wild to use 16 in the sport,” and “caring for, training, and transporting raptors held for falconry.” (Id. ¶¶ 2, 7 17 (“Any activity outside of this definition using a protected raptor does not qualify as falconry and 18 is not authorized by a falconry permit.”) (citing 50 C.F.R. § 21.3).) Accordingly, Millsap’s 19 statements that “only 11.7% of the recommended allowable take occurred” among licensed

20 falconers, and that “falconry, as currently practiced, was extremely unlikely to result in levels of 21 take that would be harmful to wild populations of any species of raptor,” refer to the take of wild

22 raptors only for non-commercial purposes related to the sport of hunting wild game with raptors. 23 Millsap’s work does not therefore directly support plaintiffs’ contention that a scenario in which 24 falconers are permitted to use their birds for commercial purposes would pose no more risk of 25 harm to wild populations of any species of raptor as the circumstances examined by Millsap in

26 2006. 27 However, Millsap’s declaration nonetheless does reflect largely speculative assertions

28 regarding the importance of the commercial speech regulations. Millsap states that “the

37

1 consequences to native raptor populations would be impossible to predict but would certainly be 2 greater than under the current regulatory paradigm.” (Millsap Decl., Doc. No. 68-2 ¶ 17 3 (emphasis added).) Additionally, Millsap declares that “[i]f falconry raptors were permitted to be 4 used in [commercial] ways, the demand for falconry raptors would increase, potentially quite 5 substantially.” (Id. ¶ 11 (emphasis added).) Finally, the Federal Defendants concede that no 6 specific studies have been performed on the commercialization of falconry and what effect such 7 commercialization would have on the wild raptor population. (See id. ¶ 17 (stating that USFWS 8 “would necessarily have to undertake a new set of analyses to assess that risk to the degree 9 possible, and then to revise the regulations to address that new, higher level of risk”).) Thus, it 10 remains at least somewhat unclear how the commercial speech restrictions challenged here 11 advance the government’s interest in protecting those populations. 12 Even if Millsap’s declaration could be interpreted to draw a connection between 13 commercialization and increased take, he does not (either qualitatively or quantitatively) provide 14 explanations or information that could allow the court to rationally address how well the 15 commercial speech restrictions fit the asserted government interest involved here. In arguing that 16 the commercial speech restrictions are not more extensive than necessary to achieve the 17 government interest, the Federal Defendants state that the speech regulations “do not prohibit 18 falconers from giving presentations or speeches on any topic they may wish to address; the 19 regulations only prohibit the use of the MBTA-protected (i.e., native to the United States) raptors

20 in such presentations.” (Millsap Decl., Doc. No. 68-2 ¶ 15.) Furthermore, the Federal 21 Defendants assert that the commercial speech restrictions “provide a limited carve-out for

22 commercial speech related to falconry or non-profit falconry associations[,]” as well as “a limited 23 exception to the prohibition on commercial use of raptors that allows falconers to use raptors in 24 certain circumstances to propagate captive-bred raptors and sell them to licensed falconers.” 25 (Doc. No. 69 at 5 (citing Millsap Decl., Doc. No. 68-2, ¶¶ 13, 14).) The Federal Defendants also

26 point to the fact that the regulations “apply only to native raptor species listed in the treaties 27 underlying the MBTA[,]” which means falconers “can engage in commercial speech using any

28 number of widely available non-native raptor species.” (Id. (citing Millsap Decl., Doc. No. 68-2

38

1 ¶ 15).) But the existence of various carve-outs is not affirmative evidence of a good fit. 2 The court ultimately finds that Federal Defendants have not shown a sufficient fit between 3 the commercial speech restrictions at 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(9)(i)–(ii) and the asserted government 4 interest, nor have they provided any evidence that rises above the level of speculation illustrating 5 how the commercial speech restrictions play a role in managing the wild take of raptors. 6 Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to 7 succeed on the merits of their First Amendment commercial speech claims.23 8 Furthermore, the Federal Defendants did not attempt to defend the non-commercial 9 speech restrictions at 50 C.F.R. § 21.29(f)(8)(iv)–(v) nor did they discuss whether those 10 restrictions satisfy strict scrutiny. (See Doc. No. 69 at 6.) Given that election, at this stage of the 11 proceedings, the Federal Defendants have not satisfied the lower level of scrutiny applicable 12 under Central Hudson, and it follows that the Federal Defendants would also unlikely overcome 13 the burden imposed on them under the strict scrutiny standard. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 14 564 U.S. 552, 571 (2011) (holding that, regardless of the commercial or non-commercial nature 15 of the speech being restricted, “the outcome is the same whether a special commercial speech 16 inquiry or a stricter form of judicial scrutiny is applied.”). 17 b. Irreparable Harm 18 Having found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits on their 19 First Amendment claims, the court now turns to whether plaintiffs have also shown a likelihood

20 that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the court granting preliminary injunctive 21 relief. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, even

22 for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Doe v. Harris, 772 23 F.3d 563, 583 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). “[A] party 24 seeking preliminary injunctive relief in a First Amendment context can establish irreparable 25 injury . . . by demonstrating the existence of a colorable First Amendment claim.” Sammartano v.

26 First Judicial Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Winter, 27 23 This finding is without prejudice to the making of a more developed showing based upon a 28 more complete record.

39

1 555 U.S. at 22; see also CTIA – The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, Cal., 928 F.3d 832, 851 2 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Irreparable harm is relatively easy to establish in a First Amendment case.”). 3 For the reasons outlined above, plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the 4 merits of their First Amendment claims. Accordingly, the court concludes that consideration of 5 the Winter factor of irreparable harm weighs in favor of granting the requested injunctive relief. 6 c. Balance of Equities and Public Interest 7 Courts “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each 8 party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief,” and “should pay particular regard for 9 the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. 10 at 24. “In assessing whether the plaintiffs have met this burden, the district court has a duty to 11 balance the interests of all parties and weigh the damage to each.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 12 F.3d 1109, 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Where the 13 government is a party to a case in which a preliminary injunction is sought, the balance of the 14 equities and public interest factors merge.” Padilla v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 953 F.3d 15 1134, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020), vacated and remanded on other grounds, __U.S.__, 141 S. Ct. 1041 16 (2021) (citing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014)). 17 Here, the Federal Defendants reassert that “the potentially permanent negative ecological 18 and environmental consequences that could arise from enjoining the challenged regulations 19 outweigh plaintiffs’ interests in obtaining preliminary relief.” (Doc. No. 69 at 8.) Specifically,

20 Federal Defendants express the following concerns: 21 As explained in the Millsap Declaration, prohibiting government officials from enforcing the challenged restrictions would increase 22 the demand for falconry permits and raptors in a potentially significant way. See Millsap Decl. (ECF 68-2) ¶¶ 11, 17. This would 23 be driven both by individuals interested in acquiring raptors to use in for-profit commercial ventures as well as an increase in the incentive 24 for unlicensed take of wild raptors. See id. Although the precise impact on individual species is difficult to predict, even a moderate 25 increase in the number of permitted falconers could have potentially significant consequences. See id. USFWS likely would take 26 regulatory action to mitigate any negative effects on wild raptor populations, but the regulatory process takes time, and the potential 27 for negative effects on local raptor populations would still exist. See id. ¶¶ 17–18. Given the important ecological role native wild raptors 28 play in ecosystems throughout the country as apex predators, a

40

1 decrease in native raptor populations at any scale could negatively affect those ecosystems in unpredictable ways. See id. ¶ 18.

2 Moreover, reversing wild raptor population decreases would take years and would be expensive. See id. ¶ 19. These important and 3 potentially significant ecological and conservation consequences weigh heavily against issuing preliminary relief.

4

5 (Doc. No. 69 at 6–7.) Plaintiffs respond by arguing that the harms posited by defendants are 6 entirely speculative and that “[e]njoining the speech restrictions will simply allow Plaintiffs to 7 speak—no other change in the way they care for, protect, fly, or capture wild birds will result 8 from an injunction.” (Doc. No. 78 at 20 (noting Federal Defendants’ admission “that the harms it 9 imagines are ‘difficult to predict’ and [Millsap’s] published research contradicts the notion that 10 ‘even a moderate increase in the number of permitted falconers’ would have any effect on wild 11 take.”) (quoting Doc. No. 69 at 7).) 12 As discussed above, Federal Defendants have only speculated as to the actual effect of 13 enjoining or removing the commercial speech regulations on wild native raptor populations. 14 However, it is that same uncertainty that cautions this court to deny injunctive relief. On the 15 other side of the balance, the court agrees with defendants that the protection of native raptor 16 species is a very important government interest. See Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 435 17 (1920) (recognizing that protecting species under the MBTA was a national interest “of very 18 nearly the first magnitude”); United States v. Vasquez-Ramos, 531 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) 19 (finding the United States has a compelling interest in protecting bald eagles under both the Bald 20 Eagle Protection Act and the MBTA). In addition, more generally, courts must be cognizant of 21 the fact that “environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied by money 22 damages.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011); see also 23 Native Songbird Care & Conservation v. LaHood, No. 13-CV-02265-JST, 2013 WL 3355657, at 24 *8 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2013) (applying Cottrell in a MBTA case). 25 In contrast to the potential ecological and conservation consequences highlighted by 26 Millsap and Federal Defendants, apart from the inherent harms recognized in the First 27 Amendment context (which are present in every First Amendment lawsuit), plaintiffs seemingly 28 will suffer relatively lesser harm if the commercial speech regulations remain in force during the

41

1 pendency of this action. Indeed, plaintiffs themselves concede that there will be no change in 2 how their falcons are protected and cared for (Doc. No. 78 at 20), and both parties maintain that 3 the commercial speech restrictions simply prohibit the use of native raptors in certain 4 presentations and via media and limit what falconers can say while holding or flying their birds 5 (Millsap Decl., Doc. No. 68-2 ¶ 15; see Doc. No. 78 at 17). Furthermore, while plaintiffs 6 reiterate that Millsap’s research shows that wild take is rare (Doc. No. 78 at 20), as the Federal 7 Defendants point out, such analysis was based on the take of native raptors only for sporting 8 purposes and not on the taking of native raptors for commercial purposes (see Millsap Decl., 9 Doc. No. 68-2 ¶ 7); Millsap & Allen, supra note 21, at 1393 (“‘Harvest’ and ‘take’ in this paper 10 refer to the capture and removal from the wild of raptors for use in falconry.”) (emphasis added). 11 “With due consideration to the free speech considerations raised by Plaintiffs, which are 12 also of public interest, a cautionary approach that favors denial greater serves the public interest 13 than granting the injunction.” Tracy Rifle and Pistol LLC v. Harris, 118 F. Supp. 3d 1182, 1195 14 (E.D. Cal. 2015). Accordingly, the court concludes that consideration of the balance of equities 15 and public interest prongs of the applicable standard weigh in favor of defendants. After fully 16 considering all four prongs of the Winter test, plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as to 17 their First Amendment claims will be DENIED. 18 CONCLUSION 19 For all of the reasons explained above:

20 1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of standing as to Counts I, II, and III (Doc. 21 Nos. 66, 68) are GRANTED and Counts I, II and III are hereby DISMISSED without leave to

22 amend. 23 2. The Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing as to Counts IV, V, VI, 24 and VII (Doc. No. 68) is GRANTED and Counts IV, V, VI, and VII are hereby DISMISSED 25 without leave to amend as to the Federal Defendants;

26 3. The State Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count IX (Doc. No. 66) is GRANTED and 27 Count IX is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend as to the State Defendant. As to the

28 Federal Defendants, Count IX (Doc. No. 68) is DISMISSED without leave to amend with respect

42

1 to the unannounced inspection provisions of the challenged regulations, but shall proceed with 2 respect to the remaining challenged speech regulations; 3 4. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction based on their Fourth Amendment claims 4 (Doc. No. 65) is DENIED; 5 5. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction based on their First Amendment claims 6 (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED; and 7 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to now reassign this case to U.S. District Judge 8 Jennifer L. Thurston and to remove the “NONE” designation.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 13, 2022 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21

22 23 24 25 26