Gifford

Gifford v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law

106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 164·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 312·2001 Daily Journal DAR 4123·88 Cal. App. 4th 801·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3352

Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 3, 2001B142639California1,886 words

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

In 1998 the City of Los Angeles, through the Los Angeles Police Department (Police Department), refused respondent Arthur S. Gifford’s application for a concealed firearm license. (Pen. Code, § 12050.) Gifford filed a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), alleging that the Police Department was obligated to give him the license pursuant to a stipulated judgment in earlier litigation, Lake v. City of Los Angeles (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 1996, No. PC008329). In response, the Police Department argued that the Lake judgment did not relieve Gifford of the statutory obligation to show good cause for a license, and that he had not done so. The trial court agreed with Gifford and entered a judgment granting the petition and commanding the Police Department to issue a license to Gifford. We agree with the Police Department and reverse.

The Lake Litigation

Gifford was one of several named plaintiffs in the Lake litigation. The City of Los Angeles and its agency, the Los Angeles Police Department, were among the defendants. The lawsuit challenged the Police Department’s procedures, rules and practices for issuing licenses to carry concealed firearms pursuant to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.