Waremart v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 December 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 67029-3.,67029-3. |
Citation | 989 P.2d 524,139 Wash.2d 623 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | WAREMART, INC., an Idaho corporation, Respondent, v. PROGRESSIVE CAMPAIGNS, INC., a California corporation; John Does I through 50, and Jane Does 1 through 50, Appellants. |
Preston, Gates & Ellis, Paul J. Lawrence, Marc C. Levy, Seattle, Christina M. Hutchins, Portland, OR, for Appellants.
Charles Hinkle, Portland, OR, for Respondent.
Waremart, Inc. (Waremart) brought an action in Clark County Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief against Progressive Campaigns, Inc. (Progressive), a corporation which manages initiative petition signature gathering campaigns. Waremart sought to enjoin Progressive and its employees from gathering signatures for initiative petitions on its property, asserting that Progressive had no legally protected right to enter its property for the purpose of soliciting signatures for initiative petitions. The Clark County Superior Court agreed with Waremart and permanently enjoined Progressive, and persons acting in concert with it, from entering Waremart's premises for the above described purposes. We granted Progressive's petition for direct review and now affirm the superior court in all respects.
Progressive, the appellant, is a profit-making California corporation engaged in "political work" primarily consisting of: (1) gathering signatures for the purpose of "qualifying initiatives for the ballot"; and (2) "field campaign work." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 19. As a part of its business, Progressive hires "petitioners," and pays them for every valid signature that they gather in support of the initiative campaign in which Progressive is engaged. RP at 21. Waremart, the respondent, is an Idaho corporation which owns and operates three retail grocery stores in Washington. Two of these stores are called "Cub Foods" and are located in the Vancouver, Washington area. One of the Vancouver area stores is located in the Vancouver Plaza and the other is in the community of Hazel Dell. The third store is located in Kennewick. The record indicates that the "Hazel Dell and Kennewick stores are located in single free-standing buildings, and the Vancouver Plaza store is located in a strip mall." Resp. Br. of Resp't at 41.
Each of Waremart's stores attracts approximately 30,000 customers per week and carries essentially the same product base of grocery items and other goods commonly sold in large retail grocery outlets.1 Waremart focuses, however, on "sell[ing] groceries" at what it claims is "the cheapest price, or the lowest prices that [it] can in the market area." RP at 133-34.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 133. It also found that CP at 133-34.
CP at 10. In addition, Waremart sought an order "[e]njoining [Progressive] and all persons in active concert and participation with them from entering the premises of plaintiff's Cub Foods and Waremart stores in Washington for the purpose of soliciting plaintiff's customers and prospective customers to sign initiative petitions." CP at 11.
After a hearing, the trial court held that:
CP at 134-35. The trial court permanently enjoined Progressive, and all persons in active concert with it, "from entering the premises of plaintiff's Washington stores for the purpose of soliciting plaintiff's customers and prospective customers to sign initiative petitions." CP at 139. Progressive sought direct review from this court, contending that the initiative provision of the state constitution provides them with the right to engage in the aforementioned activities on Waremart's property. We granted its petition.
A party seeking injunctive relief must establish: (1) that the movant has a clear legal or equitable right; (2) that the movant has a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of that right; and (3) that the acts complained of are either resulting in or will result in actual and substantial injury to the movant. King v. Riveland, 125 Wash.2d 500, 515, 886 P.2d 160 (1994). The trial court, as previously noted, found that Waremart had satisfied the aforementioned criteria, and, therefore, granted its request for a permanent injunction against Progressive. In reviewing this decision, we are mindful of the principle that the "granting or withholding of an injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court to be exercised according to the circumstances of each case." Washington Fed'n of State Employees, Council 28 v. State, 99 Wash.2d 878, 887, 665 P.2d 1337 (1983). Furthermore, the "trial court's decision exercising that discretion will be upheld unless it is based upon untenable grounds, or is manifestly unreasonable, or is arbitrary." King, 125 Wash.2d at 515,886 P.2d 160; see also Brown v. Voss, 105 Wash.2d 366, 372, 715 P.2d 514 (1986) ) . Accordingly, we must accord the trial court great deference and review its decision only for an abuse of discretion.
There are two cases that have emanated from this court, Southcenter Joint Venture v. National Democratic Policy Comm., 113 Wash.2d 413, 780 P.2d 1282 (1989) and Alderwood Assocs. v. Washington Envtl. Council, 96 Wash.2d 230, 635 P.2d 108 (1981), which have a particular bearing upon our decision in this case. In Alderwood, the issue before us was whether "Washington law[2] permits signature solicitation [for an initiative] at privately owned shopping centers."Alderwood., 96 Wash.2d at 240, 635 P.2d 108. There, a four member plurality held that both article I, section 5 ( )3 and article II, section 1(a) (amend. 7) (the initiative provision) of the state constitution both protected the right of initiative petitioners to gather signatures upon the private property of the Alderwood shopping mall in Snohomish County, "a regional shopping center with more than 1,000,000 square feet of store area on 110 acres of land." Alderwood, 96 Wash.2d at 232, 635 P.2d 108.
In concluding that article I, section 5 and article II, section 1(a) (amend. 7) each provided initiative petitioners with a right to gather signatures at the Alderwood shopping mall, the plurality noted that Alderwood, 96 Wash.2d at 244, 635 P.2d 108. These factors, according to the four justices are: (1) the nature and use of the property; (2) the nature of the speech...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glovsky v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc.
...business than the single entrance and exit of a [supermarket or giant] grocery store.” Waremart, Inc. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc., 139 Wash.2d 623, 649, 989 P.2d 524 (1999) (Madsen, J., concurring). In general, supermarketsffer a variety of groceries, household items, and other merchandi......
-
Barrett v. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc.
...Local Union No. 46 v. Trig Elec. Constr. Co., 142 Wash.2d 431, 442, 13 P.3d 622 (2000) (quoting Waremart, Inc. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc., 139 Wash.2d 623, 634, 989 P.2d 524 (1999)). Barrett's burden to overrule the "obviously intoxicated" standard is a substantial one. Id. As we noted ......
-
IBEW v. Trig Elec. Const. Co.
...a clear showing that an established rule is incorrect and harmful before it is abandoned.'" Waremart, Inc. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc., 139 Wash.2d 623, 634, 989 P.2d 524 (1999) (quoting In re Rights to Waters of Stranger Creek, 77 Wash.2d 649, 653, 466 P.2d 508 (1970). By failing to dem......
-
Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc.
..."the functional equivalent of a downtown area or other public forum." Id. at 244; 635 P.2d at 116. In Waremart v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc., 139 Wash.2d 623, 989 P.2d 524 (1999), property owners asked the Washington Supreme Court to overrule Alderwood. The court declined to do so, "[W]e a......
-
State Constitutions as a Check on the New Governors: Using State Free Speech Clauses to Protect Social Media Users from Arbitrary Political Censorship by Social Media Platforms
...555 U.S. 819 (2008); Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr., 592 P.2d 341 (Cal. 1979).105. Waremart, Inc. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc., 989 P.2d 524, 533 (Wash. 1999) (en banc) (relying on state constitution's initiative clause); Southcenter Joint Venture v. Nat'l Democratic Policy Comm., 780 ......
-
Stretching the Equal Access Act Beyond Equal Access
...constitution gives right of access to shopping malls for speech). But see generally Waremart, Inc. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc., 139 Wash.2d 623, 989 P.2d 524 (1999) (Washington constitution gives right of access to shopping malls for petitioning but not 471. Lee v. Katz, 276 F.3d 550, 55......
-
Initiative Process in Washington
...with a measure like Initiative 200, aimed at eliminating affirmative action. 4. See, e.g., Waremart v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc. 139 Wash. 2d 623, 989 P.2d 524 (1999) (for-profit signature gathering organization sought access to private premises of grocery store to gather 5. For example, ......