Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00350/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00350-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE EDWARD BARICH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF COTATI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00350-VC 

NOTICE THAT THE COURT IS 

CONSIDERING SUA SPONTE 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants are hereby given notice that the Court is considering whether to enter sua 

sponte summary judgment in Barich's favor on his claim that Chief Parish violated his First 

Amendment rights by threatening to arrest him for calling the planning commissioner a "liar" after 

the city council meeting. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1176 (9th Cir. 

2014).

It appears undisputed that Chief Parish threatened Barich merely for engaging in "heated," 

"emotion[al]," "aggressive" criticism of a public official. According to Chief Parish's own 

deposition testimony, Chief Parish told Barich, "You can't call [the planning commissioner] a liar 

in a heated emotion rant like you did," because doing so would be a crime under California Penal 

Code § 415(3). Chief Parish's own declaration, likewise, states that Chief Parish "informed 

[Barich] that if he called a private citizen [sic] a liar in a heated, aggressive, and emotional rant 

like he did and when he did, he could be found to have breached the peace in violation of Penal 

Code § 415(3)." This seems like an obvious violation of Barich's First Amendment rights. 

Because Barich's verbal exchange with the planning commissioner occurred after the city council 

meeting was over, cases concerning a city's authority to manage its governmental meetings are not 

relevant. Cf. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 975 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); Kindt v. 

Santa Monica Rental Control Bd., 67 F.3d 266, 270-71 (9th Cir. 1995); White v. City of Norwalk, 

Case 3:15-cv-00350-VC Document 42 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the only way Barich's criticism of the planning 

commissioner would not be protected by the First Amendment is if that criticism constituted

"fighting words" – "that there existed a likelihood that the person addressed would make an 

immediate violent response." United States v. Poocha, 259 F.3d 1077, 1080-81 (9th Cir. 2001). 

"In light of our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues shall be 

uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes 

unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials, the area of speech unprotected as 

fighting words is at its narrowest, if indeed it exists at all, with respect to criminal prosecution for 

speech directed at public officials." Id. at 1081. The mere fact that speech is "heated," 

"emotional," or "aggressive" is not enough to deprive that speech of First Amendment protection –

particularly when the speech in question is criticism of a public official.

The defendants are hereby given an opportunity to present further argument, and to 

identify any other relevant evidence, having now been put on notice that they are in danger of a 

summary judgment ruling against them. The defendants may present this evidence and argument 

in the same supplemental filing that the Court previously requested on October 8, 2015 (Dkt. No. 

41). The deadline to submit this supplemental filing is extended from Tuesday, October 13 to 

Wednesday, October 14, at 5 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00350-VC Document 42 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2