Cal. Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. San Francisco

Filed 2/24/06 Cal. Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. San Francisco CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellants, California Rifle and Pistol Association, appeal from an order of the San Francisco Superior Court denying their motion for attorney fees allegedly incurred by them in litigation seeking the repeal of a San Francisco ordinance banning the possession of assault weapons in the City. The court denied the motion on several grounds, among them that appellants' motion was untimely under California Rules of Court, rule 870.2,^[1] a rule expressly referenced in the stipulation and order by which the underlying litigation was dismissed. We agree with that ruling and hence affirm the superior court's order.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May 1989, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted, as Article 35A of the San Francisco Police Code, an ordinance making it a misdemeanor to possess, with certain specified exceptions, assault weapons within the City. This adoption followed an attack with an assault weapon earlier that year by a mentally disturbed man in Stockton, an attack which resulted in the death of five school children and the wounding of 29 others. (See Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472, 483 (Kasler).) It also tracked the actions of numerous other cities which adopted similar ordinances. Among other things, Article 35A recited that state law did not â€