Safeway, Inc. vs. Jane Doe 1-50
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Dahlberg, John N.

Plaintiffs Safeway, Inc.’s and Regency Realty Group’s (“RRG”) request for preliminary injunction is granted.

On December 24, 2013, the Court granted a TRO prohibiting defendants Helping For Love, et al, from trespassing at the Prairie City Crossing Shopping Center in Folsom and attempting to solicit money from customers. The Court issued an OSC and required that any opposition be filed and served by January 7, 2014. No opposition was received.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ordinarily is required to present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits. Past California decisions further establish that, as a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) The greater the showing on one factor, the lesser the showing must be on the other. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.) When the dispute involves the interplay of free speech and property rights, the analyses of likelihood of success on the merits and harm are the same. “In the unique setting of free speech rights versus private property rights, this harm analysis is the same as the analysis concerning the likelihood of success on the merits.” (Bank of Stockton v. Church of Soldiers of the Cross of Christ (1996) 44 Cal.4th 1623, 1631 [disapproved in part on other grounds in Albertson’s Inc. v. Young (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th106, 124].)

Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on their civil trespass claims. Their evidence shows that RRG owns the subject shopping center where Safeway is the anchor tenant, including all common areas and walkways near the Safeway store. (Crowell Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendants have been present at the Safeway store since December 12, 2013. They bring tables, chairs, boxes for money and display signs with the words “Restoration Outreach Program.” (Federico Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5-7, Exh. 1.) Plaintiffs have not give Defendants consent to be present and have demanded they leave. (Crowell Decl. ¶ 4; Federico Decl. ¶ 15.) Defendants have refused to leave and continue to return to the shopping center. (Federico Decl. ¶ 15.) Defendants have set up their tables in the north and south entrance channels of Safeway in a manner which interferes with customers. (Federico ¶ 10.) Defendants aggressively ask for money from customers. (Id. ¶ 12; Bruch Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) Safeway customers have complained about Defendants’ conduct. (Brush Decl. ¶ 3; Speelman Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs do not invite the general public to be present in front of the store and the general public does not congregate or socialize in front of the store. (Crowell Decl. ¶ 2; Federico Decl. ¶ 3.)

Plaintiffs’ evidence establishes that RRG owns the subject property where Defendants are aggressively seeking money from Safeway customers and that Defendants do not have permission to be present and have refused demands to leave. The evidence demonstrates that they are likely to succeed on their trespass claims. Further, there is no constitutional right for Defendants to be present at the subject location. The California Supreme Court has held that there is no right to engage in expressive activity in front of a large typically figured grocery store because the general public does not congregate in these areas. “[W]ithin a shopping center or mall, the areas outside individual stores’ customer entrances and exits, at least as typically configured and furnished, are not public forums under this Court’s decision in Pruneyard, supra, 23 Cal.3d 899.” (Ralph’s Grocery Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1083, 1091.)

In addition, as discussed above, when the dispute involves the interplay of free speech and property rights, the analyses of likelihood of success on the merits and harm are identical. Thus because Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits, the balance of harm also tips in their favor.

Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction on the same terms as the TRO which was previously issued in this matter.

Plaintiffs shall post a bond in the amount of $10,000. (CCP § 529.)

Plaintiffs shall submit a formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 which shall track the terms of the previously issued TRO and which the Court will sign once the bond is posted.

The TRO is dissolved and the OSC is discharged.