Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, No. 14-15408 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe City of Sunnyvale enacted an ordinance restricting the possession of “large-capacity magazines” - statutorily defined as any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds. Plaintiffs filed suit against the City and other individual defendants (collectively, Sunnyvale) challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the ordinance. The district court denied the motion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Sunnyvale presented sufficient evidence to show that the ordinance was likely to survive intermediate scrutiny and that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they would likely succeed on the merits of their claim.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Second Amendment. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a request to preliminarily enjoin an ordinance enacted by the City of Sunnyvale, California, restricting the possession of “large- capacity magazines”—statutorily defined as a detachable ammunition feeding device capable of accepting more than ten rounds. The panel held that the district court applied the appropriate legal principles and did not clearly err in finding, based on the record before it, that a regulation restricting possession of certain types of magazines burdened conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment. The panel further agreed with the district court that intermediate scrutiny was appropriate. The panel held that Sunnyvale’s interests in promoting public safety and reducing violent crime were substantial and important government interests. So, too, were Sunnyvale’s interests in reducing the harm and FYOCK V. CITY OF SUNNYVALE 3 lethality of gun injuries in general, and in particular as against law enforcement officers. The panel held that the evidence identified by the district court was precisely the type of evidence that Sunnyvale was permitted to rely upon to substantiate its interest. The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining, on the record before it, that Sunnyvale presented sufficient evidence to show that the ordinance was likely to survive intermediate scrutiny and that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would likely succeed on the merits of their claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.