Photo of Parissa Florez

Parissa Florez focuses her practice in environmental and energy law, emphasizing land use, environmental due diligence, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) permit approval process, municipal law, and land use and environmental litigation. She also works with Indian tribes and parties engaged in business or other transactions with Indian tribes. Prior to joining the firm, she was a clean tech policy intern for the U.S.-China Green Energy Council, where she worked on current policy, legislation and trends in clean tech and green energy. Parissa was also a Green Policy and Leadership Intern at Green For All working under Van Jones to collaborate on key provisions to be entered into the 2009 Climate and Energy Bill passed through the House of Representatives.

This post was co-authored by Stoel Rives summer associate Chad Punch.

Earlier this summer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revisited an issue that it had examined thirty years prior: whether a California Prohibition-era tied house law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it impermissibly restricts commercial speech. Specifically, in Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Prieto (No. 13-56069), the plaintiff, Retail Digital Network, LLC (“RDN”) sued Ramona Prieto (“Prieto”) in her official capacity as Acting Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“CABC”) seeking a declaration that California Business and Professions Code § 25503(f)–(h), which prohibits alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their alcohol products, violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. Hearkening back to its earlier decision in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh (830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1986)), the court here ultimately disagreed with RDN’s arguments and left California’s longstanding tied house laws intact.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rejects Retail Digital Network’s Challenge to the Constitutionality of California Tied House Law