SNATCHKO v.
Filed 8/11/10
CERTIFIED
FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Placer)
----
MATTHEW SNATCHKO,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
WESTFIELD
LLC et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
C059985
(Super.
Ct. No. SCV20641)
STORY CONTINUE
FROM PART II….
Again, we turn to the Supreme Court's opinion in
reason solicitation of funds can be prohibited (id. at p. 867), relying heavily on H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government (1987)
193 Cal.App.3d 1193, 1203 (H-CHH), a
case which upheld a shopping center's prohibition of solicitation of funds from
patrons because it interfered with the normal character and function of the
shopping mall. (Fashion Valley, supra, at p. 868.)
The Supreme Court expressly rejected H-CHH
to the extent it suggested speech may be prohibited if it interferes with
the shopping mall's business by competing with the mall's merchants. (Ibid.) Similarly here, the prohibition or
restriction of noncommercial speech unrelated to the mall cannot be justified
simply because it might interfere with the merchandising interests of the mall
and its tenants.[1]
Nor does the case of
Industrial & Textile Employees v. Superior Court (1997) 56
Cal.App.4th 996 (UNITE) persuade us
otherwise. In that case the court upheld
regulations of several shopping malls, which defendants contend are
substantially the same as Westfield's
Rules. The union in UNITE sought access to six malls to picket and distribute leaflets
in an effort to publicize its labor dispute with a particular store. (Id.
at p. 1001.) The union was denied access
to the malls because it failed to submit completed applications for access to
five of the six malls and refused an offered alternate location for its
activity upon application to the sixth mall.
(Ibid.) The union filed suit alleging the malls
adopted and enforced â€
| Description | In this case we conclude the rules of a large regional shopping mall that prohibit peaceful, consensual, spontaneous conversations between strangers in common areas of the mall about topics that are not related to the activities of the mall, its tenants or the noncommercial sponsored activities of the mall or its tenants are content-based rules that do not withstand a strict scrutiny analysis. The rules are unconstitutional on their face under article I, section 2 of the California Constitution, the California constitutional provision which guarantees the right to free speech. (Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Bd. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850 (Fashion Valley); Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899 (Pruneyard), affirmed sub nom. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) 447 U.S. 74 [64 L.Ed.2d 741].) As the trial court granted the motion for summary adjudication of defendants Westfield LLC, Westfield America, Inc., Urban Roseville LLC, and Roseville Shoppingtown, LLC (together Westfield) based on an erroneous finding that Westfield's rules were reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that were content neutral, we shall reverse the judgment in favor of defendants and direct the trial court to vacate its order granting summary adjudication and enter a new order denying Westfield's motion. We also conclude the trial court erred in striking plaintiff's prayer for attorney fees and direct the court to allow plaintiff to seek fees as may be appropriate at the conclusion of the case. |
| Rating |
