Snatchko v. Westfield Llc

• Decision Date: 03 September 2010
• Docket Number: No. C059985.,C059985.
• Citation: 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 368,187 Cal.App.4th 469
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Matthew SNATCHKO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WESTFIELD LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents.

187 Cal.App.4th 469

114 Cal.Rptr.3d 368

Matthew SNATCHKO, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.WESTFIELD LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. C059985.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Aug. 11, 2010.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 3, 2010.

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

David L. Llewellyn, Jr., Citrus Heights, 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, Encino; Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Thomas J. Leanse, Stacey McKee Knight, Regina L. Katz, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Westfield LLC.

Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez LLP, Darin L. Wessel, Los Angeles, Sejal Ojha for Defendant and Respondent Professional Security Consultants.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.

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 thatare 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, 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 172 P.3d 742 ( Fashion Valley ); Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341 ( Pruneyard ), affirmed sub nom. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) 447 U.S. 74, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741.) As the trial court granted the motion for summary adjudication ofdefendants 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 themall "inaccessible to persons who, as part of their religious conduct and expression exercise their rights of free speech and faith by conversationally speaking with other persons within the Galleria on issues of faith." In his cause of action for injunctive relief, Snatchko alleged "no constitutionally sufficient interest justifies defendants' discrimination against plaintiff based on the content or subject matter of his conversational speech. In fact, no defendant expressed to plaintiff any explanation for denying him the right to speak conversationally in the Galleria on a subject matter of his choice. Defendants' decision to refuse plaintiff's request for use of the Galleria was wholly arbitrary and capricious and based solely on objection to the subject matter of plaintiff's conversation." In his cause of action for declaratory relief, Snatchko alleged an actual controversy "in that plaintiff contends that defendants' rules, policies, and practices concerning the use of the Galleria for speech activities, as described herein, violate plaintiff's rights of freedom of speech ... under the California Constitution [.]" Snatchko sought "a declaration as to the validity of defendants' rules, policies and practices, as described in this Complaint, both on their face and as applied to plaintiff's free speech activities."

Westfield moved for summary adjudication of Snatchko's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, violation of his civil rights, injunctive, and declaratory relief. Westfield contended such claimsfailed because they were premised on the denial of Snatchko's constitutional rights when in fact Westfield lawfully adopted and enforced reasonable time, place, and manner rules governing noncommercial expressive activity at its privately-owned shopping mall.

The trial court granted Westfield's motion, finding, "as a matter of law, the regulations imposed by [Westfield] do not constitute an impermissible restriction on [Snatchko's] rights under the California Constitution. Rather, the regulations are merely reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that are content-neutral." Snatchko and defendants subsequently stipulated to entry of judgment against Snatchko on all causes of action to facilitate appeal of the trial court's decision granting summary adjudication. ( Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 401-402, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453, 981 P.2d 79.) This appeal followed.²

DISCUSSION

I.Standard of Review

The standard of review for a trial court's decision to grant summary adjudication is well established. "A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) A moving defendant has met its burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit by establishing that one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. ( o ); see Calemine v. Samuelson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 153, 160, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 495.)

We independently review an order granting summary adjudication. ( Sababin v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 81, 87, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 266.) In determining whether there is a triable issue of material fact, we consider all the evidenceset forth by the parties except that to which objections have been made and properly sustained. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) "[W]e strictly construe the moving party's evidence and liberally construe the opposing party's evidence." ( Sababin v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 88, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 266; accord Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123.)

We keep in mind that the pleadings frame the issues to be resolved. " 'The purpose of a summary judgment [adjudication] proceeding is to permit a party to show that material factual claims arising from the pleadings need not be tried because they are not in dispute.' [Citation.] 'The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment [adjudication] is to delimit the scope of the issues: the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.' [Citations.]" ( FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381, 282 Cal.Rptr. 508; see Leibert v. Transworld Systems, Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1693, 1699, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 65.) A plaintiff may not avoid...