Lexplug logoLexplug

Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Garibaldi

California Court of Appeal
50 Cal.App.4th 290 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An injunction cannot bind non-parties to the original action merely because they have actual notice of the court order. To be enforceable against a non-party, that person must be acting as an agent of, or in concert or participation with, the specifically enjoined parties.


Facts:

  • In 1988, Operation Rescue of California (ORC) and Robert Cochran began disruptive protest activities at a Planned Parenthood clinic in San Mateo.
  • The protests included large blockades that closed the clinic, loud noises that could be heard inside, and actions that frightened and intimidated patients, sometimes causing them to delay medical procedures.
  • In 1995, a court issued a permanent injunction against the named defendants, ORC and Cochran, to restrict their demonstration activities at the clinic.
  • The 1995 injunction included a clause stating it applied to the defendants and their agents, those acting in concert with them, and also to 'all persons with actual notice of this judgment.'
  • At a later time, Rossi Foti and the Garibaldi family, who were not named defendants in the 1995 action, began their own anti-abortion protest activities outside the same San Mateo clinic.
  • A dispute arose between Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (PPGG) and the new protestors, Foti and the Garibaldis, over whether the 1995 injunction was enforceable against them simply because they had been given notice of it.

Procedural Posture:

  • In 1995, Planned Parenthood Association of San Mateo County obtained a permanent injunction in a superior court action against Operation Rescue of California and Robert Cochran.
  • In a separate 1998 action, Rossi Foti sued Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (PPGG), and PPGG filed a cross-complaint against Foti and the Garibaldis.
  • The parties in the 1998 action stipulated to stay proceedings and have PPGG file a new lawsuit to determine if the 1995 injunction applied to Foti and the Garibaldis.
  • PPGG filed the instant action for declaratory relief in superior court against Foti and the Garibaldis.
  • The trial court denied a motion by the Garibaldis to strike PPGG's complaint.
  • PPGG then moved for summary judgment, arguing the defendants were bound by the 1995 injunction as a matter of law.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PPGG.
  • Foti and the Garibaldis (appellants) appealed the summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal. The Garibaldis also appealed the denial of their motion to strike.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a provision in an injunction that purports to bind all persons with actual notice of the order, regardless of their connection to the named parties, legally enforceable?


Opinions:

Majority - Haerle, J.

No, a provision in an injunction that purports to bind all persons with actual notice is not legally enforceable. Injunctions are personal decrees that operate on named defendants and cannot be applied to the 'world at large.' While an injunction can properly extend to a non-party who acts as an agent of or 'in concert' with an enjoined party, it cannot bind an unaffiliated individual solely on the basis of their knowledge of the order. The 'actual notice' provision is unconstitutionally overbroad as it burdens more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest by extending a remedy beyond the specific dispute and parties that justified it. Notice is a necessary condition for enforcing an injunction against a person properly covered by its terms, but it cannot be an independent basis for extending the injunction's reach to non-parties.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that injunctions are a personal remedy tailored to specific misconduct by specific parties, not a form of general legislation. It clarifies that a non-party's mere knowledge of an injunction is insufficient to make them subject to its terms, thereby preventing 'injunctions by notice' from binding the public at large. The ruling protects First Amendment rights by requiring a direct link, such as acting 'in concert,' between a non-party and an enjoined party before the non-party's expressive activities can be curtailed. This prevents the use of existing injunctions to preemptively regulate the speech of individuals who share similar views with an enjoined party but are not legally affiliated with them.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Garibaldi (2003) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Garibaldi