Ashbritt, Inc. v. Ghilarducci

Background

AshBritt, Inc. alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, and unspecified California procurement law. The defendants were Mark Ghilarducci, identified as the Director of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, and Ken DaRosa, identified as the Acting Director of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

AshBritt alleged that it performed cleanup services in Lake County in 2015 and that its chairman criticized the state’s payment practices during a conference call with Ghilarducci. AshBritt alleged that Ghilarducci later said he would try to prevent AshBritt from working in California. According to AshBritt, CalRecycle rejected all of its later bids for debris-removal projects. AshBritt also challenged a “California Only Restriction” in a 2020 Butte County project that limited bid eligibility to local and California-based corporations.

Motion and analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss AshBritt’s second claim, which sought declaratory relief based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause. That clause bars certain discrimination against citizens of other states based on their state citizenship. The court explained that corporations are not citizens for purposes of that clause. Because AshBritt alleged that it was a corporation, the court held that it could not bring a claim based on a violation of the clause.

AshBritt argued that the bidding restriction targeted the owners or officers of corporate bidders and therefore affected individuals. The court rejected that argument because it did not change the conclusion that AshBritt, as a corporation, lacked standing—meaning the legal ability to bring that claim—to enforce the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

AshBritt alternatively argued that its declaratory-relief claim also relied on First Amendment retaliation and California procurement law. The court noted that the complaint did not identify the California procurement law. It also stated that, although a restriction enacted in retaliation for AshBritt’s speech might violate the First Amendment, it was unclear how that would support a declaration that the restriction itself was unconstitutional.

The court further noted that the defendants had not moved to dismiss the first cause of action to the extent it was based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, even though the complaint appeared to rely on that clause. The court directed AshBritt to amend, if it could, to allege claims based on legal theories other than the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in accordance with the order. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, required AshBritt to file an amended complaint within 20 days, and directed it to plead separate legal theories in separate causes of action. The order disposed of Docket No. 12.