SAN DIEGO (CN) - A three-judge panel in the California Courts of Appeal ruled in favor of a San Diego street vendor on Thursday in a decision that deemed the city's street vending ordinances in direct conflict with state law.

Imhotep Mustaqeem brought the suit against the city in 2024 after he was fined for violating a 2022 municipal code on street vending in the downtown area. He asked the court for a preliminary injunction against the city that would prevent it from enforcing certain provisions of its municipal code.

"Addressing those legal issues, we conclude that at least two of the city's sidewalk vending regulations - namely regulations that purport to allow the impoundment of Mustaqeem's items and that restrict vending operating hours beyond those of other area businesses - are in direct conflict with the state law on their face, and that the trial court did not adequately consider those specific conflicts in its ruling on the preliminary injunction," Fourth Appellate District Associate Justice Julia Kelety wrote in the order.

Associate Justice Martin Buchanan and Associate Justice Terry O'Rourke concurred. The ruling sends the case back to trial court for further review.

"We appreciate the court of appeal's careful review of this case," Mustaqeem's attorney Jeremiah Graham told Courthouse News in a text message after the ruling. "The court held that San Diego's sidewalk vending ordinance conflicts with California's Safe Sidewalk Vending Act and reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction. This ruling provides needed clarity on the limits state law places on local regulation and confirms those limits matter in practice. We look forward to proceeding in the trial court consistent with the appellate court's guidance and to a prompt resolution on the merits."

The parties will present oral arguments on Friday in San Diego Superior Court.

If the case is decided in Mustaqeem's favor, it would have statewide implications for street vending across the state, Graham said. He also said he hopes the case will wrap up in time for baseball season for his client. 

Mustaqeem, a disabled U.S. Army veteran and a married father of two children, has operated his street vending business since 2009. The business, which earns about $40,000 per year during baseball season and at events like San Diego Comic-Con, is the primary source of income for Mustaqeem and his wife, who also suffers from a disability, he told Courthouse News in an interview earlier this month. 

The 66-year-old licensed street vendor typically sold snacks at a table in downtown San Diego near PetCo Park, the home of the Padres, about three hours before the baseball games and about an hour afterward. But in 2024, around the same year the ballpark was renovated, the city fined him $300 and ultimately impounded his products and an envelope with more than $1,200 in cash inside.

Graham and Mustaqeem have held that the city's restrictions are a violation of a 2018 California law: Senate Bill 946, or the Safe Sidewalk Vending Act. The law decriminalized sidewalk vending across the state and prevented local governments from banning street vendors, but allowed them to create some regulations focused on health, safety and welfare.

The city's restrictions have caused a ripple effect on Mustaqeem's life, costing him financially and forcing him to leave the city.

"From New York to San Diego, that's how a lot of people are able to get started making a living, because they can't afford a brick and mortar store," Graham said after an October hearing in San Diego Superior Court. "They can't afford a physical business, so mobile vending becomes an important part of allowing people to put themselves up by their bootstraps. So that's why it's really important, because it doesn't just affect the petitioner here, with Imhotep Mustaqeem."

Graham said the city's restrictions on street vending reflect a broader attempt to "clean up" the city. 

"They believe that there is a saturation of vendors in San Diego, and they want to really clamp down on it," Graham said. "It's trying to clamp down on economic competition and motivated by an animus towards vendors, and that's why they created SB 946, to protect vendors. That's what gives rise to our suit."

The city declined to comment on the pending litigation. 

"This has taken a tremendous toll on me in more ways than one," Mustaqeem said. "I am a legal business. I have every right that a brick-and-mortar business has."

Source: Courthouse News Service