Court Opinion

ID: 9546509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:30:54.921338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:32.443965
License: Public Domain

CLARK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur that due process does not compel notice in every proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 527. (See Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Waegele (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 681 [105 Cal.Rptr. 914].) I further concur with the majority’s holding that prior to issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order the applicant must demonstrate “reasonable effort in good faith to give notice, in either formal or informal fashion, to either the defendant or his counsel.” (Ante, p. 913.) However, the opinion limits notice to cases affecting substantial First Amendment rights, declaring that unnoticed proceedings are constitutionally sufficient in all other instances. (Ante, p. 913.) Why the exclusivity?
The majority’s notice requirement—if sound—should not be limited to only a small class of First Amendment cases. This court possesses inherent power to create rules of practice and procedure. (People v. Jordan (1864) 65 Cal. 644, 646 [4 P. 683]; see, e.g., Greene v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 307, 310-311 [231 P.2d 821].) The following considerations dictate that we expand the holding of the majority opinion.
Consistent with traditional notions of fair play toward an opposing party (Whittlesey v. Bellah (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 182 [278 P.2d 511]), notice secures the opportunity to be heard, ensures due process (Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. (1962) 370 U.S. 626 [8 L.Ed.2d 734, 82 S.Ct. 1386]; Crescendo Corp. v. Shelted, Inc. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 209 [72 Cal.Rptr. 776]), and yet neither delays the proceeding nor impedes judicial relief. Indeed, at oral argument, the practice of informal notice was conceded to be common.
The opinion requires attempted notice in First Amendment cases based on concerns (1) that shortages of factual and legal contentions occur in ex parte proceedings, and (2) that difficulty results in properly framing the judicial relief when only one side is presented. But these concerns are not exclusive to First Amendment controversies, instead being applicable in one degree or another to all ex parte proceedings. Whether the dispute involves child custody, repossession, or picketing, *916the judicial function is best fulfilled when competing views are communicated early in the controversy.
No justification exists for allowing unnoticed proceedings when informal notice could reasonably be given. The courts have consistently been critical of unnoticed proceedings. (See, e.g., Lummus Company v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Company (2d Cir. 1961) 297 F.2d 80, 83; Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Transport Workers Union (3d Cir. 1960) 278 F.2d 693, 694; Arvida Corporation v. Sugarman (2d Cir. 1958) 259 F.2d 428, 429.) California courts have labelled notice the “better practice” (Macmillan Petroleum Corp. v. Grijfin (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 523, 526 [222 P.2d 69]), and have on occasion judicially mandated notice when notice has not been statutorily prescribed. (See, e.g., Hicks v. Sanders (1940) 40 Cal.App.2d 211, 215 [104 P.2d 549].) Finally, the United States Supreme Court has said, “[I]nformal notice and a hastily arranged hearing are to be preferred to no notice or hearing at all.” (Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters (1974) 415 U.S. 423, 433-434, fn. 7 [39 L.Ed.2d 435, 447, 94 S.Ct. 1113].)
In past exercises of our procedure-making power, we often have looked to federal rules of practice for guidance. (See, e.g., City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 453-454 [115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701]; Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 821 [94 Cal.Rptr. 796, 484 P.2d 964].) Here examination reveals that under federal rules a requirement that reasonable effort be made to give notice is applied across the board. (See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., rule 65(b).)1 The principle underlying this broad requirement is made clear by the drafters of the rule: “In view of the possibly drastic consequences of a temporary restraining order, the opposition should be heard, if feasible, before the order is granted. Many judges have properly insisted that, when time does not permit of formal notice of the application to the adverse party, some expedient, such as telephonic notice to the attorney for the adverse party, be resorted to if this can reasonably be done.... [Ijnformal notice, which may be communicated to the attorney rather than the adverse party, is to be preferred to no notice at all.” (Adv. Committee’s Note to 1966 Amendment to Rule 65(b), 39 F.R.D. 124-125.) This principle is equally applicable to state court proceedings, and this court should follow the federal lead.
*917Adopting this general notice requirement, of course, does not mean that actual notice will be required in every instance. As indicated by the federal rule, situations occasionally arise involving circumstances of such exigency that even attempted notice would be unreasonable. While under the new rule the applicant would be required to establish the existence of these circumstances and the reasonableness of his effort to give notice, the court would then be free to act ex parte.
Inapplicability of the Majority’s Rule to Its Own Case
The inadvisability of restricting the new notice requirement is further seen in the difficulty in applying the rule to this case. To do so, of course, we must hold that “substantial free speech interests” were affected by the TRO. This the opinion does by concluding the order constituted a prior restraint on free speech by (1) limiting picketing and (2) impeding the picketers’ access to the labor camp. In addition to rejecting any need to find substantial First Amendment interests prior to requiring notice, I dispute the suggestion the order here infringed such interests.
A. The Picketing Limitations Protected Rather Than Restricted Free Speech Interests
The temporary restraining order issued by the trial court contained essentially five elements. It enjoined (1) trespassing on applicant’s property, (2) obstructing ingress and egress to the property, and (3) inflicting or threatening physical injury or property damage. Further, the order (4) limited the number of pickets at the property and, (5) imposed minimum intervals at which they could be spaced.
Analysis reveals that not one of these five elements constitutes a prior restraint on conduct protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the effect of the TRO was to preserve and promote First Amendment freedom.
The law is well-settled that the First Amendment does not sanction picketing which includes trespass on private property (see, infra, pp. 908-912), obstruction to ingress and egress (Lisse v. Local Union No. 31 (1935) 2 Cal.2d 312, 321 [41 P.2d 314]; Chrisman v. Culinary Workers’ Local (1941) 46 Cal.App.2d 129, 133 [115 P.2d 553]), violence (Drivers *918Union v. Meadowmoor Co. (1941) 312 U.S. 287 [85 L.Ed. 836, 61 S.Ct. 552, 132 A.L.R. 1200]; Steiner v. Long Beach Local No. 128 (1942) 19 Cal.2d 676, 682-683 [123 P.2d 20]), or threat of violence (Steiner v. Long Beach Local No. 128, supra, 19 Cal.2d 676, 682; Pezold v. Amalgamated etc. Workmen (1942) 54 Cal.App.2d 120, 123 [128 P.2d 611]). Instead, all picketing will be enjoined completely when such improper conduct becomes intertwined with it.
The first three elements of the order (prohibiting trespassing, violence, and obstructing access) avoid future need to terminate all picketing because the three enjoin the unlawful aspects before the otherwise protected activity becomes tainted. Therefore, it must be concluded the order effectively protected the organizers’ First" Amendment right, rather than restricted it.
The effect of the last two elements of the order (limiting the number and spacing of picketers) was also not to abridge First Amendment freedoms. First, these elements served not to restrain the expression of ideas but to give order to their expression. As made clear by the United States Supreme Court, regulation of the manner of expression—so long as not functionally prohibitory—does not constitute prior restraint. (Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975) 420 U.S. 546 [43 L.Ed.2d 448, 95 S.Ct. 1239], citing Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 574 [85 L.Ed. 1049, 1052-1053, 61 S.Ct. 762, 133 A.L.R. 1396]; Poulos v. New Hampshire (1953) 345 U.S. 395, 408 [97 L.Ed. 1105, 1115-1116, 73 S.Ct. 760, 30 A.L.R.2d 987].)
Second,, like the first three components of the order, the last two essentially preserve the picketers’ rights. Picketing ceases to be constitutionally protected where it coerces rather than informs. (Steiner v. Long Beach Local No. 128, supra, 19 Cal.2d 676, 682.) Hence, picketing may be enjoined when it becomes an intimidating mass demonstration. (Auto Workers v. Wisconsin Board (1956) 351 U.S. 266, 276 [100 L.Ed. 1162, 1173, 76 S.Ct. 794]; People v. Spear (1939) 32 Cal.App.2d 165, 168 [89 P.2d 445].) By establishing a ceiling on the total number of picketers present at one time and by limiting their ability to cluster—thereby maintaining the picketing within the shelter of the First Amendment—this order again preserves the United Farmworkers’ ability to communicate its message. While these limitations may have properly reduced the intimidating effect of the message, it cannot be concluded they impeded the union’s ability to communicate it in view of the small size of the grower’s property.
*919B. No Right of Access for Trespassing Picketers
The opinion treats as a well-settled rule the conclusion there exists a First Amendment right in union organizers to go onto the farmer’s private property to attempt unionizing the latter’s employees. Such is not the case. Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court and of this court make clear that with very limited exception the right of private property transcends the outsider’s right of expression.
“Before an owner of private property can be subjected to the commands of the First and ■ Fourteenth Amendments the privately owned property must assume to some, significant degree the functional attributes of public property devoted 6o public use.” (Central Hardware Co. v. N.L.R.B. (1972) 407 U.S. 539, 547 [33 L.Ed.2d 122, 128-129, 92 S.Ct. 2238].)2 “Although accommodations between the values protected by these three Amendments [First, Fifth and Fourteenth] are sometimes necessary, and the courts properly have shown a special solicitude for the guarantees of the First Amendment, this court has never held that a trespasser or an uninvited guest may exercise general rights of free speech on property privately owned and used nondiscriminatorily for private purposes only.” (Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) 407 U.S. 551, 567-568 [33 L.Ed.2d 131, 141-142, 92 S.Ct. 2219].)
The rule in the series of cases beginning with Marsh v. Alabama (1946) 326 U.S. 501 [90 L.Ed. 265, 66 S.Ct. 276], and extending to Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, supra, is that the right of private property, protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, is subordinated to an unwelcome outsider’s First Amendment right only in the limited situation where (1) the property has assumed “to some significant degree the functional attributes of public property devoted to public use,” (2) the thought to be communicated relates directly to the property, and (3) no reasonable alternative means is available by which the thought can be communicated. (Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, supra, 407 U.S. 551; Central Hardware Co. v. N.L.R.B., supra, 407 U.S. 539; Food Employees v. Logan Plaza (1968) 391 U.S. 308 [20 L.Ed.2d 603, 88 S.Ct. 1601]; Marsh v. Alabama, supra, 326 U.S. 501.) It is clear from the record that at least the first of these three requirements is not satisfied here; the orchard bears no attribute of *920public property. (See Central Hardware Co. v. N.L.R.B., supra, 407 U.S. 539; In re Asociacion de Trabajadores Agricolas de Puerto Rico (D.Del. 1974) 376 F.Supp. 357.) Thus, the right to private property is protected against intrusion by one asserting his right to speech.
In reaching the contrary conclusion, the majority’s opinion avoids even reference to these high court decisions—and further, substantially disregards our recent decision in Diamond v. Bland (1974) 11 Cal.3d 331 [113 Cal,Rptr. 468, 521 P.2d 460]. Contrary to Justice Mosk’s suggestion in his majority opinion, footnote 3 in Diamond v. Bland creates no labor picketing exception from the rule discussed above. In distinguishing the labor cases, Diamond pointed out that one element of the tripartite test, absent in Diamond, was present in those cases, namely, the speech was directed at the picketed property. The other two parts of the test were met in the labor cases, and there is nothing in footnote 3 or the text accompanying it indicating that labor cases are exempt from the tripartite test.3 The truth of this conclusion is best reflected in Justice Mosk’s own analysis of the cases in his dissenting opinion in Diamond v. Bland: “These decisions emphasized that an employee who sought to bring his grievance to the attention of the public and apply economic sanctions against his employer could effectively do so only at the place where the business was located, and that any incidental impairment of the shopping center owner’s property rights was largely theoretical since he had opened his premises to the public and his right in the property was ‘worn thin by public usage.’ ” (Diamond v. Bland, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 341 (Mosk, J., dissenting).) Clearly there is no suggestion in either Diamond, or the cases discussed in its footnote, that picketers may encroach private property assuming no public attribute.
In support of its contrary conclusion, the opinion relies on several decisions of the federal district courts. However, most are not in point, either involving private property resembling the company town situation *921in Marsh v. Alabama or addressing the employer’s ability to restrict his tenant-employee’s right to invite people onto the property.4 At best it can be said the cases relied on only reflect a conflict in authorities at the trial court level—with the most recent decision, based on the high court decisions discussed above, declaring a constitutional right of access does not exist. (See In re Asociacion de Trabajadores Agricolas de Puerto Rico, supra, 376 F.Supp. 357.) While the opinion expresses concern that the labor camp not become a prison, by allowing unwelcome picketers to corral the camp’s occupants, the majority’s holding may prove self-defeating.
McComb, J., concurred.

Rule 65(b) provides in pertinent part: “A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the *917adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting his claim that notice should not be required....”

A person may go onto the property of another for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether the latter would welcome the former’s noncommercial message at that location. (Martin v. Struthers (1943) 319 U.S. 141 [87 L.Ed. 1313, 63 S.Ct. 862, 882].) However, once the outsider is aware he is unwelcome on the property, he has no right to remain. “A city can punish those who call at a home in defiance of the previously expressed will of the occupant____” (Id., at p. 148.)

The text in Diamond reads, “The Court distinguished Logan on the basis that, unlike the situation in that case, the handbilling had no relation to any purpose for which the shopping center was being used, [fn. 3] and that respondents had adequate alternative avenues to disseminate their views by distributing the material on the public streets and sidewalks, including those surrounding the shopping center.” (Id, at p. 334.) The footnote then states: “By a parity of reasoning, both Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers’ Union, supra, 61 Cal.2d 766, and In re Lane, supra, 71 Cal.2d 872, are likewise distinguishable, since in both cases labor unions had a labor dispute with, and were picketing, businesses located within the shopping centers. The labor activity in those cases had a direct relation to the businesses affected by that activity, a factor which led us to strike the balance between private property rights and First Amendment activities in favor of the latter.”

We are not concerned in this case with the right of the resident workers to invite people onto the property. There is no evidence of any such invitation, nor have the union representatives suggested that during any of their trips to the camp prior to the TRO they were ever welcomed by any of the occupants to stay.