In Animal Protection and Rescue League, Inc. v. County of Riverside, published June 5, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 affirmed judgment entered after the county's demurrer was sustained and summary judgment was granted to the county. The plaintiff and others demonstrated near a pet store in a shopping mall, protesting the store's alleged acquisition of its dogs. The area of their protest included a table where the plaintiffs displayed literature as part of their protest. Mall officials informed the plaintiff that the protesters would need to move to a new location, away from the store, because the table had been reserved by a different organization. The plaintiff did not want to move. A sheriff's deputy arrived and allegedly threatened the plaintiff with arrest if she did not leave the area. The plaintiff asked the deputy to write her a ticket she could fight in court. The deputy allegedly stated that he would not cite and release her if she did not leave, but would arrest her and take her to jail. The plaintiff and other protesters left the area. The plaintiff and her organization. The court sustained demurrers without leave to amend as to the plaintiffs' negligence action against the county and deputy, and as to individual plaintiff's Bane Act and Ralph Act claims. The court then granted the county and deputy summary judgment against the declaratory relief cause of action.
The appellate court upheld these rulings. The negligence cause of action was subject to demurrer, because the plaintiff did not allege any physical injuries, and did not allege any facts that the deputy owed her any duty of care that he breached. The Ralph Act cause of action was subject to demurrer, because the Act bars threats of violence against persons based on their political affiliation, and a threat to arrest a person is not a threat of violence for purposes of this claim. The trial court properly sustained demurrer as to the Bane Act claim, because under Civil Code section 52.1(k) speech alone is insufficient to support a Bane Act claim unless the speech itself threatens violence against a person or group of persons; and a threat to arrest a person is not a threat of violence for purposes of the statute. Finally, the declaratory relief claim was subject to summary judgment, because the county agreed with the point on which the plaintiffs sought a declaration (that the mall's time, place, and manner rules were not enforceable laws) and therefore there was no actual controversy on which a declaration was necessary.
Leave a Reply