Southcenter Joint Venture v. National Democratic Policy Committee

Citation780 P.2d 1282,113 Wn.2d 413
Decision Date19 October 1989
Docket NumberNo. 55952-0,55952-0
Parties, 58 USLW 2263 SOUTHCENTER JOINT VENTURE, a general partnership; Richard E. Jacobs; and David H. Jacobs, Respondents, v. NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE; Pat Ruckert; Richard Iaria; Melinda N. Norris; and George Holtzner, individuals, Appellants.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Richard B. Sanders, Bellevue, for appellants

Ferguson & Burdell, Henry C. Jameson, Alan Bornstein, Seattle, for respondents.

Peter J. Eglick, Seattle, Robert R. Meinig, Kirkland, amicus curiae for appellants on Behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union.

James B. Stoetzer, Michael B. King, Seattle, amicus curiae for respondents on Behalf of Northgate Shopping Center and Merchants Ass'n and Tacoma Mall Merchants Ass'n.

ANDERSEN, Justice.

FACTS OF CASE

This case presents the question of whether a political organization has a right under the free speech provision of the Constitution of the State of Washington to solicit contributions and sell literature in a privately owned shopping mall. We conclude that it does not.

Southcenter Joint Venture (Southcenter) owns the Southcenter Shopping Center, an enclosed shopping mall On June 20, 1986, an organization named the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC) submitted an application requesting the use of a public service center. The NDPC is a political organization apparently devoted to advancing the political views of one Lyndon LaRouche. Despite its name, the NDPC is not affiliated with the Democratic Party.

                comprised of numerous retail stores.   The Southcenter Shopping Center will be referred to herein simply as the "mall".   Southcenter acquired the mall from its previous owner in December of 1985.   At all times pertinent herein, it maintained a policy of allowing charitable, civic and political groups to use designated "public service centers" within the mall.   Southcenter promulgated regulations governing the use of these areas by such outside groups.   These regulations required that groups wishing to use the public service centers first submit an application to do so.   One of the regulations prohibited solicitation of funds in the mall
                

In its application, the NDPC stated that it wished to use a public service center for the purposes of distributing literature, signing up members, and soliciting contributions. Southcenter denied the application due to its regulation against soliciting funds. This prompted an attorney representing the NDPC to inform Southcenter that he considered the NDPC's right to solicit funds at the mall to have been established when it prevailed in an earlier civil action brought against it by the previous mall owner. The attorney also told Southcenter that he would advise his clients to be present in the mall "at such times and places as they deem appropriate".

In the afternoon of July 17, 1986, four individuals who were members of, or affiliated with, the NDPC appeared unannounced at the mall and undertook to solicit contributions and sell literature. The mall's assistant manager asked them to leave, but they refused. Later that afternoon, they left the mall of their own accord.

Southcenter subsequently brought an action in the Superior Court against the NDPC and the four individuals who The Superior Court granted Southcenter's motion and entered judgment permanently enjoining the NDPC from soliciting contributions or selling literature on the mall premises without Southcenter's consent. The NDPC then sought further review. The Court of Appeals certified the case to this court for determination and we accepted certification. 1

                had appeared at the mall.   For convenience, the NDPC and these four individuals are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "NDPC".   By its action, Southcenter sought a judgment declaring that the NDPC had no right either to solicit funds at the mall or violate Southcenter's other rules concerning the use of its premises.   Southcenter then sought issuance of a preliminary injunction and the Superior Court granted it.   The NDPC answered Southcenter's complaint and counterclaimed, alleging defamation for a statement contained in the mall manager's affidavit supporting the injunction, stating that "one of the individuals sitting at the NDPC card table wore a swastika-type symbol on his arm."   Southcenter moved for summary judgment in its favor, and the NDPC also moved for partial summary judgment
                

This case presents us with three issues.

ISSUES

ISSUE ONE. Does the doctrine of collateral estoppel apply so as to prevent relitigation of issues raised in a prior action brought by the previous mall owner against the NDPC?

ISSUE TWO. Under the free speech provision of the Constitution of the State of Washington, does a political organization have the constitutional right to solicit contributions and sell literature at a privately owned shopping mall?

ISSUE THREE. Did the trial court err by dismissing the NDPC's counterclaim for defamation?

DECISION

ISSUE ONE.

CONCLUSION. The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply in this action because Southcenter is not in privity with a party to the prior litigation.

The NDPC first contends that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies here. Its contention is based on the fact that issues similar to those raised in this case were litigated in an action brought by the previous mall owner against the NDPC in 1984. In the earlier case, the NDPC prevailed in the Superior Court and the then mall owner did not appeal.

The following elements are required for application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel:

(1) identical issues; (2) a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted must have been a party to or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) application of the doctrine must not work an injustice on the party against whom the doctrine is to be applied.

Shoemaker v. Bremerton, 109 Wash.2d 504, 507, 745 P.2d 858 (1987) quoting Malland v. Department of Retirement Sys., 103 Wash.2d 484, 489, 694 P.2d 16 (1985).

Southcenter asserts that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply here because, among other things, collateral estoppel element 3 is absent in that Southcenter was not a party to or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication. We agree. It is true that Southcenter did acquire the mall from a party to the prior action. It is also true that a successor in interest to a party to an action that determines interests in property is subject to the preclusive effects of that action. 2 That rule, however, is not applicable where the previous action involved a "personal" right, as opposed to a "property" right. 3 In the prior action, the parties disputed whether the NDPC had a free speech right to solicit contributions and sell literature at the mall. We conclude that a constitutional right of free speech in a case of this sort is more appropriately classified as a "personal" right than a "property" right. This is because such a right is not unique to the particular shopping mall involved, nor does it affect the title thereto. 4

Thus, since the previous action involved a personal right, Southcenter is not in privity with a party to the prior adjudication and collateral estoppel does not apply to prevent relitigation of issues raised in the previous action. This conclusion is bolstered by our rule that the relitigation of an important issue of law should not be foreclosed by collateral estoppel. 5

ISSUE TWO.

CONCLUSION. The free speech provision of the Constitution of the State of Washington (Const. art. 1, § 5) affords protection to the individual against actions of the State. It does not protect an individual against the actions of other private individuals. The free speech provision of our state constitution thus does not afford the NDPC a constitutional right to solicit contributions and sell literature at the mall.

It is the NDPC's next contention that it has a free speech right to solicit contributions and sell literature at the mall. It is, of course, true that the oral and written dissemination of one's views is protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. 6 Such protection is not lost when written materials are sold or contributions are solicited in the course thereof. 7 Thus, according to the NDPC's arguments, its activities at the mall constitute protected speech.

In the case of Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972), however, the United States Supreme Court held that the first amendment to the United States Constitution did not protect the distribution of political handbills in a privately owned shopping mall. In so holding, it stressed that

the First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard the rights of free speech and assembly by limitations on state action, not on action by the owner of private property used nondiscriminatorily for private purposes only.

Lloyd, 407 U.S. at 567, 92 S.Ct. at 2228. The Court in Lloyd also firmly rejected the argument that the mall had lost its private character because it was open to the public and served the same purpose as a business district. 8 The United States Supreme Court thereby repudiated the position it had taken in the earlier case of Amalgamated Food Employees Local 590 v. Logan Vly. Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603 (1968). 9

A state may, of course, "adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution." PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 2040, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980). 10 The NDPC urges us to so construe the free speech provision of the Constitution of the State of Washington (Const. art. I, § 5) and conclude that it affords the NDPC the right to solicit contributions and sell literature at the mall. Indeed, we have previously construed this state's constitutional free speech provision...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 cases
  • Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • February 28, 1997
    ... ... Court considered whether the Texas Democratic Party could exclude African-Americans from voting ... the county committee in the conduct of its internal party affairs ... See, e.g., Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Committee, 159 Ariz. 371, 767 ... , 273 S.E.2d 708, 712 (1981); Charleston Joint Venture v. McPherson, 308 S.C. 145, 417 S.E.2d 4, 548-49 (1992); Southcenter Joint Venture v. National Democratic Policy ... ...
  • Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1994
    ... ...    Appellees enforce a nondiscriminatory policy against all handbilling, picketing, soliciting, ... --------------- ... 1 Charleston Joint Venture v. McPherson (1992), 308 S.C. 145, 417 ... (1990), 260 Ga. 245, 392 S.E.2d 8; Southcenter Joint Venture v. Natl. Democratic Policy Commt ... ...
  • State v. Rivers
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 24, 1996
    ... ... Strikes and You're Out" Legislation: A National Assessment, 59 Fed. Probation 16, 25 ... Southcenter Joint Venture v. National Democratic Policy ... ...
  • State v. Boland
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1990
    ... ... relationship between private parties, Southcenter Joint Venture v. National Democratic Policy ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Private property, public property: shopping centers and expressive freedom in the states.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 62 No. 4, June 1999
    • June 22, 1999
    ...was exemplified in two cases before the Washington Supreme Court. See South-center Joint Venture v. National Democratic Policy Comm., 780 P.2d 1282, 1290-91 (Wash. 1989) (en banc) (holding that the state action requirement applies under Washington's Constitution while explaining that the co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT