H-Chh Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government
Decision Date | 28 July 1987 |
Docket Number | H-CHH |
Citation | 238 Cal.Rptr. 841,193 Cal.App.3d 1193 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership, dba Plaza Pasadena, and Hahn Property Management Corporation, a California Corporation, Plaintiffs, Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. CITIZENS FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, an Unincorporated Association, dba Pasadena Citizens for Representative Government, Dale L. Gronemeier, Christopher A. Sutton, and Ozro Anderson, Defendants, Appellants and Cross- Respondents. Civ. B019051. |
Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta and Dale L. Gronemeier, Nicholas George Rodriguez, Brenda J. Penny, Christopher A. Sutton and Elbie J. Hickambottom, Pasadena, for defendants, appellants and cross-respondents.
Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown and Baerwitz and Thomas J. Leanse and Charles M. Gale, Long Beach, for plaintiffs, respondents and cross-appellants.
Allen B. Grodsky, Robert B. Broadbelt, Beverly Hills, Antonette B. Codero, Gary Williams and Paul Hoffman, Los Angeles, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
Defendants Citizens for Representative Government and individual members thereof appeal from orders granting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs H-CHH Associates and Hahn Property Management Corporation. Plaintiffs cross-appeal from that portion of the order which invalidates their rules and regulations proscribing the solicitation of funds from or approaching plaintiffs' patrons.
Plaintiffs own and operate privately an extensive shopping center in downtown Pasadena known as Plaza Pasadena. The two-story building complex contains approximately 600,000 square feet of rental space and caters to 125 commercial tenants. This area surrounds a central courtyard running the length of the mall interior. The area denominated "Garfield Court" is approximately 100 feet wide; the remainder of the courtyard is approximately 40 feet in width. The Plaza occupies several square blocks along the city's major thoroughfare and has replaced, for the most part, one of the city's major shopping districts. It is immediately adjacent to the Pasadena auditorium and convention center and within one block of City Hall. The city's redevelopment agency financed three underground parking garages extensively used by the Plaza and for which the Plaza pays rental fees. There is little access to the Plaza from public streets and the vast majority of Plaza patrons gain entrance through the city-owned parking garages. The land upon which the Plaza stands is city-owned, acquired through the exercise of its powers of condemnation.
On December 19, 1985, defendant Dale L. Gronemeier (Gronemeier), a member and representative of Citizens for Representative Government, approached Patricia K. Maude (Maude), the manager of Plaza Pasadena, expressing a desire to circulate leaflets and gather petition signatures on Plaza property. Maude supplied Gronemeier with a registration form developed by plaintiffs and a set of plaintiffs' written "Rules of Political Petitioning on Shopping Center Property." She also advised him that Plaza Pasadena would not permit the solicitation of signatures during the Christmas season. Gronemeier nevertheless informed Maude that Citizens for Representative Government would appear to solicit signatures on Monday evening, December 23, 1985.
The preamble to plaintiffs' written rules defines "political petitioning" as
Rule 1 of plaintiff's written rules provides in pertinent part: Rule 2 states:
Rule 3 requires that "All petitioners engaged in political petitioning shall use only that portion of the center property expressly designated for that purpose by the center management office." Rule 4 leaves the number of petitioners who may engage in political petitioning at a given time solely within the discretion of the management office. "This determination shall be based on the following factors: (1) the area available for such activities; (2) the number of petitioners who wish to engage in such activities at one particular time; (3) the potential for conflict between petitioners or between petitioners and members of the public; and (4) the safety of the public and center property." Similarly, Rule 5 leaves the time during which political petitioning may take place solely within the discretion of the management office and states that determination is to be based on the four factors enumerated in Rule 4.
Rule 6 provides: Rule 7 states: Rule 9 prohibits the use of lights, loudspeakers or other electrical or mechanical equipment, while Rule 10 prohibits the use or operation of any musical instrument or sound reproduction device "in such a manner as to cause any sound or noise which, in the reasonable belief of the center management office, may be disturbing or offensive."
Rule 8 prohibits petitioners from making an "express or implied representation to any person within the center or on center property that the owner or the manager of the center sponsors or supports any view, belief, or request contained in any petition, statement or literature being disseminated or exhibited on center property." Rule 11 prohibits the solicitation of "contributions or donations from anyone on center property," as well as "the sale of any items or services on said property." Rule 12 requires that petitioners "not impede or interfere with the business of any center tenants, employees or personnel, nor shall they approach, detain, or in any way impede or interfere with the smooth flow and free passage of center patrons, customers or personnel through the access ways of the center."
Rule 13 provides: Finally, Rule 14 promulgates standards of general decorum.
In addition to the written rules, plaintiffs have adopted the following unwritten rules which govern political activity on Plaza Pasadena property. A party seeking the use of Plaza property for political activity must fill out the written registration form; thereafter, he or she will receive notification within 72 hours of acceptance or rejection of the application. Apart from verifying that the activity involved is political rather than commercial, the management office is to have no concern with the subject matter of the activity. Generally, political activities are to be assigned to the Garfield Court area. No political activities will be authorized the day after Thanksgiving or during the latter part of December. The availability of the forum for the days requested must be confirmed; each applicant will be limited to two days unless no other request has been made for the third day and day-to-day thereafter. Political activities are to be manned by a maximum of two persons, and the Plaza will provide authorized display furniture only: a card table with table cloth and two chairs. The only articulated standard for denying an application is a determination that it will "adversely affect the shopping center environment, atmosphere, or image."
After consulting with Susan Roberts, director of marketing for Plaza Pasadena, Maude made a decision in the first week of December to prohibit political activity during the Christmas season. At that time, the Plaza accommodated a large Christmas tree, a Santa Claus display, an automobile raffle, a gingerbread house display and auction, booths for gift wrapping, mailing and gift certificates, a toy collection facility and various story book displays. In addition, Plaza traffic increased significantly at that time of the year, as evidenced by the increase in use of the parking structure during December 1984 from 214,051 automobiles to 344,500. Statistically,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Irvine Co.
...7 week human embryo moments before abortion" sign and the QR code sign.However, citing H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1193, 238 Cal.Rptr. 841 ( H-CHH ), the trial court found the ban on grisly and gruesome displays was a constitutional conte......
-
People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna
...appearance is resented by the majority of their fellow citizens." (Fns. omitted; see also H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1193, 1221, 238 Cal.Rptr. 841 [prohibition against "approaching" mall patrons overbroad because it "encompass[es] lawful......
-
Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B.
...that also involved a solicitation of funds and predates our decision in Alliance. H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1193, 1203, 238 Cal.Rptr. 841 (H-CHH), held that a shopping mall properly could prohibit the solicitation of "`contributions or ......
-
Prigmore v. City of Redding
...( Klein, supra, at p. 1207.) The Klein court reasoned that Savage relied extensively on H–CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1193, 238 Cal.Rptr. 841 ( H–CHH ), and H–CHH was disapproved in Fashion Valley Mall. ( Klein, supra, at p. 1207.) None of ......