Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05517/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05517-20/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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH CUVIELLO AND DENIZ BOLBOL,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, ALAMEDA

COUNTY, OAKLAND-ALAMEDA

COUNTY COLISEUM AUTHORITY,

OAKLAND COLISEUM JOINT VENTURE,

L.L.C., SMG, OAKLAND POLICE OFFICER

R. VALLADON, OAKLAND POLICE

OFFICER R. VILLEGAS, OAKLAND

COLISEUM ASSISTANT SECURITY

MANAGER “SKEET” ELLIS, AND DOES 1-

100,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-5517 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Defendants’ Motion to Modify the

Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs filed suit against various defendants alleging violations of their civil rights. Before

the court is defendants’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction currently in place. Docket

No. 320 (Motion). Having considered the parties’ submissions and arguments, the court enters the

following memorandum and order.

BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2009, Magistrate Judge Chen made the following findings and

recommendations:

The animal compound has a wall around its perimeter. Plaintiffs wish to access the

area directly adjacent to the walls of the animal compound in order to videotape

animals in the compound. Defendants contend that there should be no access because

the public does not have general access to the parking lot area surrounding the animal

Case 3:06-cv-05517-EMC Document 333 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 5
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

28

2

compound as that is where trucks and other circus equipment is housed. The parking

lot area which houses the trucks and other circus equipment has been referred to as

the ‘truck corral’ by Defendants.

. . .

As noted above, the areas adjacent to the perimeter wall in question is used to store

trucks and other circus equipment. While there is a legitimate reason to restrict the

public from generally accessing this area, Plaintiffs’ video footage from August 2008

reflects that a number of patrons manage to walk through the truck corral on their

way to the animal compound or Arena. In other words, security is not strict. To be

sure, Defendants presented evidence at the contempt hearing of a constant effort by

security to keep patrons out of the corral. The success of those efforts is not clear. In

any event, based on the footage, there is no indication that there would be any

significant harm either to Defendants or to the circus if Plaintiffs alone, and a limited

number of people acting in concert with them, were permitted to access a path

directly adjacent to the perimeter wall. It is highly unlikely that there would be any

circus equipment in close proximity to the wall.

The Court concludes that there are at least serious questions on the merits as to

whether this area constitutes a public forum under the California Constitution (i.e.,

whether Plaintiffs’ access would be basically incompatible with normal activity in

this area) and whether the restrictions are constitutional. Moreover, because access

can be restricted so as to minimize any harm to Defendants, the balance of hardships

tips decidedly in Plaintiffs’ favor. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the

preliminary injunction be modified to permit Plaintiffs, and a limited number of

people acting in concert with them, access to a ‘walkway’ running along the

perimeter wall of the animal compound. The walkway shall be no wider than three

feet.

Docket No. 235 (R&R) at 5-6. The court adopted this finding and recommendation in its entirety. 

Docket No. 240 (Order). During the 2010 circus, defendants intend to install a six-foot chain link

fence to prohibit the general public from entering the “truck corral.” Based on this changed

circumstance, defendants seek modification of the preliminary injunction, which currently allows

plaintiffs access to “[a] three-foot wide walkway running alongside the perimeter wall of the animal

compound.” R&R at 12.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[A] district court retains jurisdiction to modify the terms of its injunctions in the event that a

change in circumstances requires it.” Anderson v. Central Point Sch. Dist., 746 F.3d 505, 507 (9th

Cir. 1984). “A party seeking modification . . . of an injunction bears the burden of establishing that

Case 3:06-cv-05517-EMC Document 333 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 5
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

28

3

a significant change in facts or law warrants revision . . . of the injunction.” Sharp v. Weston, 233

F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2000).

DISCUSSION

Parking lots associated with public entertainment venues are generally considered public

fora. Kuba v. 1-A Agr. Ass’n, 387 F.3d 850, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We hold that protest activity is

not inherently incompatible with the activity to which the parking lots and walk-ways outside the

Cow Palace are dedicated, and that those areas are therefore public fora for purposes of California

Liberty of Speech Clause analysis.”). However, this “does not give demonstrators free rein” at the

public venue. Id. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions may be imposed so long as these

restrictions pass Constitutional muster. Id. Restrictions pass muster “provided the restrictions ‘are

justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to

serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for

communication of the information.’” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)

(quoting Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)).

Stricter security measures with respect to access to the truck corral constitute changed

circumstances that bear upon whether the restrictions sought by defendants are a valid time, place or

manner restriction. Defendants claim they intend to install the chain-link fence to alleviate potential

security, safety and asset protection concerns. There is little doubt that a contiguous six-foot fence

will limit the number of patrons who manage to walk through the truck corral on their way to the

animal compound or the Arena. 

Although there is no indication that there would be any significant harm either to defendants

or to the circus if plaintiffs were permitted to access a path directly adjacent to the animal

compound, the “harm” prong of the preliminary injunction analysis should not be conflated with

whether the proposed restriction is a valid time, place, and manner restriction as set forth in Ward. 

The elimination of access to the “three-foot wide walkway running alongside the perimeter wall of

Case 3:06-cv-05517-EMC Document 333 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 5
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

28

4

the animal compound,” and consequently, creation of a restriction on speech in that walkway, meets

all three Ward factors.

Firstly, the restriction is independent of the content of the speech within the walkway—no

member of the public may speak within the walkway adjacent to the animal compound.

Secondly, the elimination is narrowly tailored to serve security, safety and asset protection

purposes. Subsequent to the installation of the chain-link fence, the normal activity of the area

within the fence, but outside the animal compound, will be to house defendants’ trucks and

equipment. Ron Little, the general manager of defendant SMG, testified that the “existence of any

members of the public in the Truck Compound creates potential risks related to safety, security and

asset protection. The Truck Corral houses Circus wagons, trucks, truck trailers and equipment. At

times during the dates the Circus is at the Arena, these wagons, trucks, truck trailers and equipment

are moved in and out of the [sic] and around the Truck Corral. Such movement could potentially

cause an injury to a member of the public who was not anticipated to be present in the Truck Corral. 

Further, the safekeeping of the wagons, trucks, truck trailers and equipment is potentially at risk if

individuals other than Circus staff and event staff gain access to the Truck Corral.” Docket No. 320-

2 (Little Dec.) ¶ 2. Thus, the safety concerns are obvious—harm to members of the general public. 

Indeed, defendants admit that their past efforts at restricting access have been unsuccessful, thereby

necessitating the need for stricter restrictions. The security and asset protection concerns relate to

defendants’ desire to secure their private property from theft or destruction. Although defendants

have failed to provide evidence of actual security, safety or asset protection breaches, this failure

does not render their concerns speculative. Although persuasive, defendants need not always

actually incur harm prior to embarking upon stricter security measures in order to justify those

measures. The concerns identified by defendants have always existed, as pointed out in Judge

Chen’s order quoted above. See R&R at 5-6 (“patrons manage to walk through” the truck corral

area; “constant effort by security to keep patrons out of the corral.”). Defendants now simply seek

to eliminate these concerns through more severe security measures than those employed in the past. 

Thirdly, the elimination leaves open ample alternative channels—the adjacent public

fora—for communication.

Case 3:06-cv-05517-EMC Document 333 Filed 08/11/10 Page 4 of 5
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

28

5

Accordingly, the preliminary injunction is modified to eliminate the “three-foot wide

walkway running alongside the perimeter wall of the animal compound” provision; instead,

plaintiffs, and a limited number of people acting in concert with them, are permitted access to a

three-foot “walkway” running along the outside of the chain link fence that encloses the truck corral.

Plaintiffs claim that the walkway outside the animal compound has historically been open to

non-ticketed pedestrians and therefore defendants cannot now restrict access. Specifically, they

claim to have had unfettered accessed to the perimeter for the past 22 years. Docket No. 331

(Cuviello Dec.) ¶¶ 2-8. However, the fact that the public was able to access the perimeter of the

animal compound due to insufficient security measures does not mean that the public was within its

rights to do so. Moreover, since the area to which plaintiffs seek access is a part of the Arena

parking lot, it may be used for various purposes depending upon the nature of the event being hosted

by the Arena. Because the Arena is a multi-purpose venue, the historical import of a particular

sliver of the parking lot that, for a few days a year over the past couple of decades, has served as the

perimeter of the animal compound, is unclear. Therefore, plaintiffs’ argument cannot carry the day.

Finally, defendants also seek elimination of the second prong of the preliminary injunction;

however, they have not presented changed circumstances justifying its elimination. It is unclear

whether patrons must always use the corridor to enter and exit the animal compound. Specifically,

evidence submitted by defendants suggests that instead of using the “chute,” patrons may gain

access to the animal compound by walking around the truck corral perimeter to the other side of the

animal compound entrance. See Little Dec., Exh. A (Map). Thus, no modification of the second

prong is warranted at this time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-05517-EMC Document 333 Filed 08/11/10 Page 5 of 5