2014-00161328-CU-CR

Peter Sailors vs. County of Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Filed By: Karalash, Daniel M.

Judge Cadei has reviewed the following matter and determined that it does not
disqualify him from hearing cases involving the County of Sacramento. This
information is provided to allow all parties appearing before him on any matter
involving the County of Sacramento as a party to be fully informed in advance of
any hearing as to his connection with this entity.

Judge Cadei is married to Toni J. Moore, Executive Director of the First 5
Sacramento Commission which is an entity that is part of the County of
Sacramento. First 5 California and 58 First 5 County Commissions were created
by statewide voter initiative passed in 1998. First 5 is separately funded out of
special tobacco tax proceeds and is directed to support programs for children.
As such the Commission is not dependent on the general funds of Sacramento
County for its operations. The Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County does
review and approve its yearly budgets and long-term plans. Plaintiff Peter Sailor’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.

This is an action for Intentional Interference with Business Relations, Unfair Trade
Practices, Tortious Interference with Prospective Advantage, Civil Conspiracy, and
Violation of Due Process.

Plaintiff is a private investigator working with and for clients accused of city and state
criminal charges, many of whom are held in the Sacramento Jail System. Plaintiff
alleges that on at least three occasions he was denied access to the Jail System to
interview his client or witnesses.

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants County of Sacramento,
Sheriff Scott Jones, Captain Pattison, and Sergeant Linke, from denying Plaintiff
access to individuals held in Defendants’ detention facilities. Although Plaintiff seeks
to characterize the injunction as a prohibitory injunction, the Court finds that the
substance of the injunction is a mandatory injunction (i.e. compelling Defendants to
allow Plaintiff access to the detention facilities.)

A mandatory injunction “is rarely granted.” (Davenport v. Blue Cross of California
(1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 435, 446.) A very strong showing is required for a mandatory
injunction, including substantiation that the moving party is likely to prevail in the action
and that a weighing of relative hardship to the parties if an injunction is not issued
clearly favors the moving party. (See e.g., Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n v. Furlotti
(1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493-1998; Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles (1994)
37 Cal.App.4th 618, 625.)

However, even if the lesser standard for a prohibitory injunction applied, the Court
would still deny the motion.

Likelihood of prevailing on the merits

Plaintiff argues that he is likely to prevail on the merits because Defendants’ denial of
Plaintiff’s access to his attorneys’ clients, denies the client’s meaningful assistance of
counsel and access to the courts.

In opposition to the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not have standing to
proceed because he is not alleging that the banning of his visits violated his right to
counsel, but of others who are not a party to this action. Defendants further argue that
their actions are reasonable and were based on a thorough investigation that was
conducted based on Plaintiff’s potential criminal activity. Specifically, Defendants
contend that an investigation disclosed that Plaintiff was contacting inmates at the
Sacramento Jail and appeared to be actively soliciting inmates for bail, and potentially,
legal services in violation of 10 Cal. Code. Regs. § 2074 et seq. (Declaration of
Captain Richard Pattison, ¶ 3.) It appears that Plaintiff did so without a bail license
and without a legal license. (Id.) To ensure the safety and security of the jail facility as
well as prevent the commission of potentially additional crimes, Plaintiff was denied
access to the secure side of the facility to conduct professional visits. (Id.) Plaintiff is
still permitted to conduct interviews in a non-secure setting and may speak to inmates
via telephone, mail, or email. (Id.) The County District Attorney’s office declined to
prosecute. (Id. ¶ 4.) In reply, Plaintiff argues that he has standing because his own property has been
taken without due process. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that as part of his state issued
license to work as a private investigator, he has secured a property right to pursue his
occupation and that Defendants’ actions have diminished the value of his property (i.e.
his license).

For the purposes of this motion only, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated
a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff has
been deprived of his property. Defendants have not revoked or suspended Plaintiff’s
license. Indeed, Plaintiff may still work as an investigator. Moreover, Plaintiff has not
been deprived of his ability to contact the inmates via other methods. Plaintiff’s legal
authorities do not support the proposition that in this factual situation he has been
deprived of his property.

Balance of the Harms

Having failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court need not
reach the balancing of harms. Nonetheless, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff
will suffer irreparable harm given that he can be adequately compensated by
damages.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.

Defendants are admonished for untimely filing their opposition. Future failures to
comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure, Rules of Court, or Local Rules may
result in the offending pleading being stricken. The Court declines Plaintiff’s request
for sanctions pursuant to CCP §473(c)(1).