SNATCHKO v. >WESTFIELD > LLC



















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)

APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Placer
County, Larry D. Gaddis, Judge. Reversed with directions.



Pacific
Justice Institute, Kevin T. Snider and Matthew B. McReynolds; McKinley &
Smith, Timothy M. Smith for Plaintiff and Appellant.



David
L. Llewellyn, Jr., for Missionary Church of the Disciples of Jesus Christ;
Center for Law & Religious Freedom and Kimberlee Wood Colby; Crowell &
Moring LLP, Bruce Zabarauskas, Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., James Maisano for
Christian Legal Society as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.



Horvitz
& Levy LLP, Jeremy B. Rosen and Stephen E. Norris; Katten Muchin Rosenman
LLP, Thomas J. Leanse, Stacey McKee Knight, Regina
L. Katz for Defendant and Respondent Westfield
LLC.



Manning
& Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez LLP, Darin L. Wessel, Sejal Ojha for
Defendant and Respondent Professional Security Consultants.
clear=all >



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.

>BACKGROUND

Hoping for
opportunities to share his Christian faith, Matthew Snatchko, a youth pastor,
often went to a large regional shopping mall--the Galleria in Roseville, owned,
operated and managed by Westfield (hereafter the Galleria or the mall).[1] While he was in the common area of the mall
one evening, Snatchko approached three young women in their late teens, asked
them if they were willing to talk with him, and upon receiving their consent,
engaged them in conversation, which included with their permission his sharing
with them principles of his faith. He
did not raise his voice or otherwise create a scene. He did not distribute any literature. He did not solicit money or other contributions
of any kind. He did not ask them to join
his church. He did not block mall
patrons.

Nevertheless, a
nearby store employee called the mall's security office and requested they
investigate Snatchko's actions. A
security officer responded and observed what he believed to be nervous behavior
by the young women. Snatchko did not
observe any expression or conduct by the women indicating they were nervous or
that they did not want to continue the conversation. It appeared to Snatchko that the security
officer stopped and listened to his conversation with the women.

The security
officer approached and asked Snatchko to stop what he was doing or leave the
mall. When Snatchko refused, the
security officer called for backup. A
senior security officer responded and instructed Snatchko to leave. As Snatchko continued to refuse, the security
officers forcibly placed Snatchko under citizen's arrest, handcuffed him and
escorted him to the security office where they turned him over to Roseville
police.

Snatchko was
booked and released by the police. When
he appeared at arraignment, however, all charges were dismissed. The Placer County District Attorney later
stipulated Snatchko was factually innocent of the charges and the Placer County
Superior Court issued an order of factual innocence.

Snatchko filed
this action against Westfield,
Professional Security Consultants (PSC)--the private security company employed
by Westfield, and Richard
Flores--the senior security officer who arrested and handcuffed him (together
defendants). Snatchko's first amended
complaint alleged causes of action for false imprisonment, assault, battery,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, malicious
prosecution, violation of civil rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code,
§ 51 et seq.), injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

In relevant part,
Snatchko's first amended complaint alleged defendants made the mall
â€