That's correct - but what the ruling in Peruta said was that the plaintiffs hadn't done a good enough job showing that their circumstances were identical to those of people who were approved.
This is what the court said:
Plaintiffs submitted more than 700 pages of applications and renewals. Id. The court observed that “some applicants were granted concealed weapons licenses after stating on paper basically the same grounds for issuance upon which plaintiffs’ applications were denied.” Id. Nonetheless, the court held there was no genuine issue of material fact because the records did not establish those who received licenses were similarly situated to plaintiffs. Id. The records were incomplete—they did not reveal information compiled in background checks, oral interviews and the like—and the records did not establish a causal connection between factors suggesting “privileged class” and the issuance of a concealed weapons license. Id. The court concluded that, “without evidence of anything more than vagaries in  administration,” plaintiffs equal protection claim could not survive summary judgment. Id.
Like the plaintiffs in March, Plaintiffs here cannot demonstrate they were treated differently than similarly situated others. To show disparate treatment, Plaintiffs have offered a number of HDSA renewal applications as a contrast to Plaintiffs initial applications. See Exs. U-PP. But the two types of applications are not comparable; renewal applications are generally issued on the spot and subject to less rigorous documentation requirements than initial applications. See Pelowitz Decl. ¶ 12. Just one of the Plaintiffs contends his renewal was denied, and in that case, the renewal was granted following an appeal. See Exs. K-S. Accordingly, the evidence introduced by Plaintiffs does not establish or create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether similarly situated individuals were treated differently. At most, it demonstrates “vagaries in  administration.” See March, 2001 WL 1112110, at *5 (N.D.Cal. 2001). Moreover, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the denials of concealed weapons licenses to them were based on impermissible grounds. Defendant’s policy does not favor HDSA members in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
,, so it's not just good enough to copy someone else's good cause statement and wait for approval - at least not today in San Diego County.