Cornwell

Cornwell v. Hamilton

Good Law

80 F. Supp. 2d 1101·1999 WL 1335630·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20607

United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaAugust 18, 199997 CV 138-B (POR)California11,221 words

Opinion

Brewster, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF CORNWELL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF AHNHA’S MOTION AND DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

I. Introduction

This case involves the question of whether, as applied, the State of California’s Barbering and Cosmetology Act and implementing regulations violate Plaintiffs’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights.

II. Background

A. Plaintiffs’ Claims

The causes of action legally relevant to these motions are Plaintiffs’ claim that the cosmetology regulations as applied violate their Fifth Amendment Substantive Due Process rights as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment and their Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights. The Substantive Due Process claim- — denial of the right to earn a livelihood — is self-explanatory; the Equal Protection claim merits explication.

Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim is grounded on the reasoning that “sometimes the grossest discrimination can lie in treating things that are different as though they were exactly alike.” Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 442 , 91 S.Ct. 1970 , 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). Plaintiffs’ claim is not that the Barbering…

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.