Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00082/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00082-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Deniz Bolbol, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey

Circus, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 04-00082 JW 

ORDER MODIFYING AUGUST 24, 2004'S

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, a group of animal rights activists brought this action against Defendants Feld

Entertainment, Inc., dba Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus ("Circus") and the San Jose Arena

Management Company, LLC, dba and sued herein as HP Pavilion Management (“HP Pavilion

Management”) (collectively “Defendants”) in January 2004, under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 (claiming violation of

their First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution), and CAL. CONST. art I, § 2(a)

(California's Liberty of Speech Clause), and CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 602.1, 837, and 847 (false arrest). 

On August 24, 2004, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction governing the

conduct of Plaintiffs on the grounds of the HP Pavillion for the duration of this litigation. See Order

Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated August 24, 2005, and Preliminary Injunction,

dated August 24, 2004. Presently before this Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of the August 24,

2004's Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs' motion was heard on August 22, 2005. Based upon all papers

filed to date and oral arguments, this Court modifies the August 24, 2004 Preliminary Injunction Order as

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 159 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

set forth below.

II. BACKGROUND

The HP Pavilion is a large indoor arena in San Jose, which serves as a venue for major sporting

events, musical concerts, and other forms of entertainment. The City of San Jose owns the HP Pavilion

facility itself, as well as the land on which it is built. Defendant San Jose Arena Management Company,

LLC, which does business as HP Pavilion Management, exclusively operates the HP Pavilion facility under

a long-term operating agreement. HP Pavilion Management has exclusive possession and control of the HP

Pavilion facility—including its parking lots.

As it did last year, HP Pavilion will be hosting the Circus beginning August 24, 2005. One of the

special features of the Circus is the Animal Open House, which is set up in HP Pavilion's parking lot. The

Animal Open House begins 90 minutes before show time and ends 30 minutes before show time, and

enables ticket holders to see the Circus's animals up close.

According to the complaint and subsequent briefs filed by the parties, the HP Pavilion has hosted

the Circus for years. Plaintiffs contend that for each year that the Circus has been in town, they have

traveled to the HP Pavilion to distribute to ticket holders leaflets regarding the treatment of animals. 

Plaintiffs contend that their activism historically has been peaceful and there has never been any altercation. 

Plaintiffs assert that when people declined to accept a leaflet, Plaintiffs would accept such declination and

proceed to a different patron. 

In September 2003, Plaintiffs claim, Defendants, "without warning, . . . worked together to arrest

[them]." (First Amended Complaint ¶ 24.) As the result, Plaintiffs filed this instant suit. Plaintiffs then filed

a Motion for Preliminary Injunction which the Court granted on August 24, 2005.

//

//

//

//

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 159 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Plaintiff Alfredo Kuba has since attempted to get out of the settlement agreement and HP Pavilion

Management position is that Kuba remains bound by the terms of his agreement, which include a dismissal

of his claims against HP Pavilion Management. See Docket No. 98.

3

In March 2005, HP Pavilion Management entered into a settlement agreement with three of the

Plaintiffs, Aaron Lodge, Tracey DeMartini, and Alfredo Kuba.1 (HP Pavilion Management Opp’n to

Motion for Modification of Preliminary Injunction, hereafter “HP Pavilion Management Opp’n” at 5.) 

Under the non-confidential portion of the settlement, HP Pavilion agreed to adopt a “Free Speech

Protocol” for the Circus event that permits speech activists access to virtually the entire HP Pavilion parking

lots. 

As Plaintiffs did last year, Plaintiffs wish to be back at the Circus and to distribute leaflets at this

year's Circus. However, Plaintiffs seek to modify the very preliminary injunction it moved for in August of

2004. Specially, Plaintiffs contend that subsequent events demonstrate that Defendants’ claims regarding

the necessity of their requested restrictions were legally deficient and factually baseless. Also, Plaintiffs

assert that Defendant HP Pavilion Management’s “Free Speech Protocol” plainly exceeds the restrictions

HP Pavilion formerly contended was necessary. (Motion at 1.)

During oral argument, Defendant HP Pavilion Management stated that the Court should not

consider Plaintiffs’ motion due to improper reliance on HP Pavilion Management’s Rule 68 settlement offer

and the March 2004 settlement agreement. However, if the Court were inclined to modify the August 24,

2004 Preliminary Injunction, HP Pavilion urged the Court to adopt its “Free Speech Protocol” because the

protocol calls for reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Defendant Feld Entertainment, Inc.,

opposes motion on the grounds that it was not properly noticed, it is not based on any new facts, and the

August 24, 2004, Preliminary Injunction is constitutional.

III. STANDARDS

Upon motion to vacate or modify a preliminary injunction, movant must show “changed

circumstances which make the continuation of the injunction inequitable” by presenting “new facts to the

district court which would justify modification." Winterland Concessions Compnay v. Trela , 735 F.2d 257,

260 (7th Cir. 1984). The movant must present “new facts or legal matters which could not have been

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 159 Filed 08/23/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

presented at the original hearing on the preliminary injunction” which are “evidence of changed

circumstances which would make continuation of the injunction inequitable." Merrell-National

Laboratories, Inc., v. Zenith Laboratories, Inc., 579 F.2d 786, 791-792 (3d Cir. 1978); Tanner Motor

Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir. 1963). The motion to modify does not force the

trial judge to permit relitigation of his original determination that the injunction should issue. Winterland,

supra. 

IV. DISCUSSION

At the hearing of the motion, it became apparent that Plaintiffs’ ultimate desire is to have the

injunction vacated. However, it appears to the Court that there is still a need to provide guidance to the

parties with respect to where expressive activities may or may not take place. The Court notes Defendant

HP Pavilion Management, in connection with a partial settlement with two other Plaintiffs, have agreed to a

“Free Speech Protocol” which expands the area of expressive activities. Although the existing Plaintiffs are

not content with even this expanded protocol, the Court recognizes that both sides of this action have

legitimate and important interests to protect. The Court believes that a modification of the preliminary

injunction along the lines of the Free Speech Protocol will accommodate those interests and give certainty

to what conduct is restricted if any. Thus, the Court believes the restrictions are reasonable for the purpose

of a preliminary injunction and modifies the Order as follows: 

1. Expressive activities are permitted anywhere in the HP Pavilion parking lots, except 

within areas bounded by a semi-circle having a ten-foot radius whose center is the 

entrance to the queue to the Animal Open House;

2. Free speech activists are permitted in the area at the top of the steps of the North 

entrance to the Arena but none may conduct expressive activities any closer than 20 

feet from the North entrance doors;

3. Activists are free to videotape in the same manner as any member of the public; and 

4. Activists are allowed to park in the HP Pavilion parking lots in the same manner as 

any member of the public.

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 159 Filed 08/23/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Nothing in this modification of the preliminary injunction is intended to prohibit Plaintiffs from

distributing leaflets or engaging in other expressive activities at other places in the vicinity of the HP Pavilion. 

Nothing in this modification order applies to Defendant City of San Jose, which is free to conduct

law enforcement activities as it sees fit.

Defendants' security personnel are permitted to notify any person identified in interest with Plaintiffs

to cease and desist from any violation of this injunction. If the violation persists, Defendants may take

reasonable actions to enforce the peaceful enjoyment of its patrons, including ejectment of the Plaintiffs

from the HP Pavilion facilities.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court modifies its August 24, 2004 Preliminary Injunction Order. 

The parties are responsible for distributing a copy of this Order of modification of the preliminary injunction

to any person in interest with them, so that all are aware of its terms.

Dated: August 23, 2005 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 159 Filed 08/23/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Christine L. Garcia christine@animalattorney.com

Frank R. Ubhaus fru@berliner.com

J. Kirk Boyd kirkboyd@aol.com

Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria jvalenzuelasantamaria@mfmlaw.com

Lizbeth Brown lizbethbrown@aol.com

Marwa Elzankaly melzankaly@mfmlaw.com

Nora Valerie Frimann cao.main@sanjoseca.gov

Thomas P. Murphy tpm@berliner.com

Dated: August 23, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 159 Filed 08/23/05 Page 6 of 6