Animal activists are celebrating a recent ruling by U.S. District Court Judge George King that granted the city of West Hollywood’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Mayfair House over the city’s fur ban.

While animal advocates praised the judge’s ruling, representatives of Mayfair House in West Hollywood lamented the court’s decision. (photo by Aaron Blevins)

A representative of Mayfair House who asked to remain anonymous said the business is “very disappointed with the whole situation,” but declined to say whether the company would be filing an appeal.

“We’re exploring what course to take, and we have the opportunity to appeal the judge’s decision,” said attorney Joseph Wilson, of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. His firm is representing Mayfair House. “All in all, the challenges to the ban are far from over.”

The plaintiff had argued that the ban violates the California Constitution, which gives the Legislature the sole ability to regulate fish and wildlife; that the ban was preempted by California’s Fish & Game Code; is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, among other things.

In his ruling, King wrote that the argument that the ordinance is vague is “disingenuous,” as any alleged ambiguity was resolved by the city before the ordinance went into effect in September.

According to the ruling, Mayfair House argued that the ordinance does not reasonably inform a person what “wearing apparel” means within the ordinance’s definition of “fur apparel.” King said the city has clarified to retailers what is and is not considered wearing apparel. He also disagreed that the term was unconstitutionally vague.

Additionally, Mayfair House argued that the definitions of “second-hand store” and “private party” were also vague. King wrote that both are common, easily-defined words and are not unconstitutionally vague.

The plaintiffs also claimed that there was no rational basis to exempt nonprofits from the ban. According to King, there are “many potential legitimate reasons” to treat nonprofits differently.

Lastly, Mayfair House argued that there is no rational basis to ban only wearing apparel. King stated that the argument was unpersuasive, as courts routinely reject arguments that a governing body did not go far enough in passing a law.

Wilson said the plaintiffs have until the beginning of June to file an appeal. However, he said Mayfair House could file state law challenges without the need to appeal.

Mayor John D’Amico, who spearheaded the fur ban, said he was “absolutely” pleased with the result.

“I thought the city attorney wrote a strong ordinance, and it turned out to be the case,” he said, adding that the ban has been effective. “It’s been successful in terms of its reach in the media, and I think that the impact on the business community, as was predicted, was not significant. I think it was a win in both ways.”

D’Amico said he was not aware of any businesses leaving West Hollywood, though some people suggested one business did leave as a result. He said the business left the city at the height of the economic downturn, so its relocation may or may not be related.

Ed Buck, of Fur Free WeHo, said the judge went further in his ruling than animal advocates had hoped. He noted that it has been about four years since the city began discussing the ban.

“Armageddon didn’t happen. Nobody left West Hollywood,” Buck said, adding that retail space in West Hollywood has maintained its price per square foot. “If anything, people are staying. It did not drive business away.”

He said advocates did “an amazing amount of consciousness raising,” and he hopes to see other cities follow in West Hollywood’s footsteps.

“It’s a pretty remarkable little place we have here,” Buck added.

The Mayfair House representative said the business loves West Hollywood, which makes the ban and court ruling even more unfortunate.

“We’re only fighting for our rights to be able to sell a product that we have been selling for many years,” she said, adding that Mayfair House sells Ugg boots, not fur coats. “We would like to be able to maintain selling a product that we’ve been selling for many years with no issues and is legal everywhere.”

The spokeswoman said the city’s attempt to be fur-free is commendable, but it doesn’t make sense when a retailer can sell a fur rug next door.

“Apply it across the board. There’s too many inconsistencies,” she said. “You can’t say you‘re cruelty free and fur free when you’re not.”

Buck said advocates were willing to negotiate Ugg boots out of the ordinance, but Mayfair House said they still wouldn’t support the ban. He said advocates wrestled with how to define fur products, but wound up using the Federal Trade Commission’s definition of fur.

“We simply took the federal guidelines into our ordinance,” Buck said.

The Mayfair House representative said the company only deals with manufacturers that source their products and ensure that they are being produced in the most humane way possible.

“We’ve made sure to check into those details,” she said.