Ok, here we go. About to get started on the hearing for the outdoor dining ban at LA Superior Court.

Judge James Chalfant explaining his decision and arguing with LA County attorneys: "I think one of the problems with pandemic is that gov't agencies including the media are driving the fear. And the evidence shows that healthy Americans need not fear..."

"...And I think that has been a tremendously failure by gov't agencies and spokespersons... the average healthy American is not seriously at risk of dying… There's no question the health department has a dilemma..."

"The health department's job is to make sure the healthcare system is not overwhelmed… and they have to do something. The question is what do you do? You have seized on a straw. [Outdoor dining] carries a minimal risk according to the CDC…"

LA County's attorney is arguing that the judge has set a "borderline impossible" task for the Health Dep't to meet to do full-blown economic, social, psychological research before enacting restrictions.

LA County's attorney argues: "I don't think that's required by law. I don’t think that's possible. And I don't think any other court in the country has said this."

LA County's attorney and Judge Chalfant now sparring about comorbidity rates.

Judge Chalfant says LA County's argument is weak because by the county's own description, the risk of outdoor dining is moderate and can be mitigated.

Judge: You want to look like you're doing something so you're restricting outdoor dining.

Now, Judge Chalfant and LA County attorney are arguing about how easy or hard it is for hospitals to convert their regular beds to ICU/Covid beds.

Judge: "You're imposing a restriction that there's no reason to believe it's going to help."

LA County attorney argues that these kind of public health restrictions can only be overturned if they're determined to be arbitrary and capricious but these restrictions are not arbitrary or capricious, they are well-founded in public health management.

LA County attorney is arguing that the judge is imposing a new standard for overturning these kind of gov't mandates.

CRA lawyer points out that the public health department must consider all relevant factors.

Mark Geragos now speaking, claims LAC Public Health is saying "We can do whatever we want."

Geragos arguing that per a statement by Mark Ghaly, the idea behind the outdoor dining ban was to keep people at home rather than specifically to prevent Covid transmission in that environment.

Geragos now attacking LA County Public Health Dep't for "losing control" of Covid.

JUDGE: "I am shocked that in 9 months... [gov't agencies] have not looked seriously at outdoor dining. I am not laying this at the county's feet but that is a failure of government."

Judge agrees that avoiding stressors on the healthcare system that would diminish the number of hospital beds but says: The question is: can you make that link to outdoor dining?

LA County attorney says you could make that argument about EVERY business and every sector or business. "It's like playing a game of whack-a-mole."

LA County attorney argues that the Judge is telling the Health Dep't how it needs to exercise discretion. He says the judge is creating a standard that is unworkable and has gone way past the "arbitrary and capricious" standard.

Judge asks if Health Dep't can do whatever it wants unfettered, unbridled, without any review in the name of public health. LA County attorney says no and that is not what we are doing. We are banning outdoor dining for 3 weeks.

LA County attorney argues that the standard the judge is setting is impossible. Judge says, at some point, officials have to justify what they are doing. Back in March, they could have made this argument but not now.

Judge acknowledges he is trying to keep his personal thoughts out of it and says he might do it differently but that's not his role. "But I think the law requires me to say you have to engage in every factor..."

Judge (cont'd): "You can't just say we're going to impose this restriction without thinking about its costs."

LA County attorney says the judge seems to be giving opinions from the plaintiff's experts a lot of weight and opinions from the defendant's experts not a lot of weight.

We're still in middle of the hearing and it is HEATED but it seems like Judge Chalfant's tentative ruling is going to stand. LA County's attorney's arguments don't seem to be cutting any ice with the judge.

LA County attorney points out that all events and gatherings are prohibited so restaurants are not being singled out. And that it makes no sense to tell people you can't get together with other people... except in restaurants.

Judge just said: "The stay at home orders are ineffective. People are not going to stay home. They are completely ineffective."

Judge says health dep't should crack down on restaurants that aren't complying. LA County attorney says there aren't enough health inspectors to go to 20% of restaurants.

Judge says the argument that there aren't enough people/resources "leaves me cold." He and the LA County attorney argue about whether or not local gov't agencies are doing everything they can.

CRA attorney now talking. He says they relied on contact tracing for their evidence. Says that not once, has the county done a risk-benefit analysis about outdoor dining.

CRA attorney says LA County has singled out restaurants. He says restos invested substantial money in making outdoor dining feasible.

CRA attorney argues that the county decided that it was just going to stop outdoor dining without any evidence.

Judge says: We all agree there is a serious hospital bed shortage issue but will closing outdoor dining help that? Or is it just a drop in the ocean to look like we're doing something?

CRA argues outdoor dining is not an unreasonable risk and the County has not been able to dispute that. No one has weighed the risk of outdoor dining against any other activities. The court has only pointed to the absence of any justification for the county's ban.

Geragos now pointing out that cities -- he specifically cites Manhattan Beach -- have declared outdoor dining areas as "public spaces" so people can order food and eat in them.

Geragos now arguing you can't just eliminate freedom of association and if this case went to SCOTUS they would agree. He calls the ban on outdoor a "Trojan horse" to get people to stay home and it's not going to work. In fact it has had the opposite effect.

Geragos calls the ban on outdoor dining "feel-good political theater."

Now, we're in the portion of today's courtroom festivities where we talk about "remedy."

Judge: You don't get to issue your own order without backing it up with a risk-benefit analysis but you do get to enforce the state's order until Mr. Geragos gets it overturned.

Which suggests that this lawsuit may be laying the groundwork for a suit to challenge California's larger regional/statewide order. This is just speculation on my part. But RN, even with this ruling, CA's state order supersedes the LA County order.

Judge says Health Dep't can still enforce CA's order banning outdoor dining but can't enforce LA County's outdoor dining ban.

So a health inspector can go to a restaurant that's got outdoor dining and say, "Stop! You are violating the state's order" but it CAN'T say, "Stop! You are violating the county's order."

Franz Kafka and Joseph Heller, call your agent! They're poaching on your territory.

Now, they're arguing about money and attorney's fees and the bond amount. Which means we are wrapping up. I hope.

They're still arguing about fees. Thought we were done and an attorney said, "I'd like to be heard on this issue." Resulting in an audible groan in the media overflow room where I'm sitting.

Judge makes a joke about if Geragos returns to court to fight the state order. And... we... are... outta... here.