California Court of Appeal Apr 21, 2015 No. D064457Unpublished
Filed 4/21/15 Kuba v. SeaWorld CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ALFREDO KUBA et al., D064457
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00091823- CU-CR-CTL) SEAWORLD, LLC et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Steven R.
Denton, Judge. Affirmed.
Evans & Page, Corey A. Evans, Geneva Page and Bryan W. Pease, for Plaintiffs
and Appellants.
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, Patricia H. Benson and Emily F. Evitt, for
Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
The case involves a dispute over whether activists have a state constitutional right
to engage in expressive activities at the entrance to an amusement park located on
parkland leased from a government entity. Alfredo Kuba and San Diego Animal
Advocates (collectively, Kuba) appeal a summary judgment in favor of SeaWorld, LLC
and certain of its employees (collectively, SeaWorld) on Kuba's claims for violations of
the state Constitution's liberty in speech clause (Cal. Const., art I, § 2, subd. (a)) and Civil
Code section 52.1. Kuba contends we must reverse the judgment as to his constitutional
claim because the sidewalk in front of SeaWorld's ticketing entrance is a traditional
public forum by virtue of its location within public parkland, and expressive activities
may not be banned outright in a traditional public forum. Kuba further contends we must
reverse the judgment as to his statutory claim because SeaWorld's threat to tow
demonstrators' vehicles constituted a prohibited threat of violence. We are unpersuaded
by either contention and further conclude Kuba's claims are time-barred. We, therefore,
affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
SeaWorld operates a marine-themed amusement park and charges a fee for
admission. The amusement park is located on 189.4 acres of commercial property
SeaWorld leases from the City of San Diego (City). The lease requires SeaWorld to pay
rent and property taxes, and gives SeaWorld the right to quiet possession of the leasehold
during the lease term.
The leasehold is located within Mission Bay Park. According to the SeaWorld
Master Plan Update, "Mission Bay Park is a seven square mile public aquatic park that
provides a diverse range of recreational activities serving both local and regional needs
including, boating, picnicking, walking, and bicycling. Additionally, Mission Bay Park
2
hosts a number of commercial-oriented recreation leases such as SeaWorld, resort hotels
and recreational camping, as well as not-for-profit leases such as youth camping and
sailing facilities."
SeaWorld has a policy prohibiting all trespassing, loitering, demonstrating,
petitioning, and leafleting on the leasehold. No trespassing signs are posted
approximately every 30 feet on SeaWorld's perimeter fence, and similar signs are posted
at prominent locations on the leasehold.
Although Kuba knew of SeaWorld's policy, he and others with the San Diego
Animal Advocates went to SeaWorld on March 31, 2007, to engage in expressive
activities. The group convened in SeaWorld's paid parking lot and then, carrying
banners, signs, and leaflets, walked through the parking lot to SeaWorld's ticketing booth
area. They stopped by the member entrance and stood in front of a sign advising of
SeaWorld's policy prohibiting solicitation and the distribution of literature on the
leasehold.
SeaWorld security officers met the group when they reached the entrance,
informed the group they were on private property, and requested they leave or face arrest.
The security officers also threatened to have the group members' vehicles towed away.
The group quickly returned to the parking lot and left.
Kuba sued SeaWorld in federal district court, claiming SeaWorld's policy violated
his free speech rights under the federal and state Constitutions. The federal district court
granted summary judgment to SeaWorld on Kuba's federal claims and dismissed Kuba's
state law claims, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. The Ninth
3
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal district court's judgment. (Kuba v.
SeaWorld, Inc. (2011) 428 Fed.Appx. 728, 730.)
Kuba then filed the instant action asserting claims for violation of the state
Constitution's Liberty of Speech clause (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a)) and Civil Code
section 52.1. The trial court granted summary judgment for SeaWorld, finding the area
where Kuba attempted to engage in expressive activities was not a public forum, either
by tradition or by function. The court also found a threat by SeaWorld's security officers
to tow demonstrators' vehicles was not the type of threat prohibited by Civil Code section
52.1.1
DISCUSSION
I
Statute of Limitations
A
Before seeking summary judgment, SeaWorld demurred to Kuba's complaint,
asserting Kuba's causes of action were time-barred because Kuba did not file the
complaint within 30 days after the federal court dismissed his state law claims as required
1 As part of its papers below, SeaWorld submitted 39 evidentiary objections, which the trial court overruled without comment. In footnote 1 of its respondent's brief, SeaWorld stated it was renewing all of its objections on appeal. We decline to review the propriety of the trial court's ruling on SeaWorld's objections because SeaWorld did not file a cross-appeal and has not shown review is otherwise necessary to determine whether any trial court error prejudiced Kuba. (Code Civ. Proc., § 906; Building Industry Assn. v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 744, 758, fn. 9.) 4
by 28 U.S.C. section 1367(d) (§ 1367(d)).2 The court overruled the demurrer, noting a
split of authority about the proper interpretation of § 1367(d) and finding more persuasive
the interpretation expressed in Bonifield v. County of Nevada (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 298
(Bonifield), under which Kuba's state law claims were timely. SeaWorld did not reassert
this point in its summary judgment motion.
During the pendency of this appeal, the California Supreme Court resolved the
split of authority and expressly disapproved of Bonifield's interpretation of § 1367(d).
(City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern (2014) 59 Cal.4th 618, 622.) Based on this new
precedent, SeaWorld contends we should affirm the judgment on the alternative legal
ground Kuba's causes of action are time-barred. (See Sahadi v. Scheaffer (2007) 155
Cal.App.4th 704, 714 [whether a cause of action is time-barred is a question of law];
Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 742 [questions of law on undisputed facts may be
raised for the first time on appeal]; D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11
Cal.3d 1, 19 [an appellate court will affirm a judgment if the judgment is correct on any
applicable legal theory].) We agree.
B
Although federal court jurisdiction is generally limited to claims presenting a
federal case or controversy or disputes between diverse parties, federal courts may
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims forming part of the same case
2 This code section provides the statute of limitations for a supplemental state claim dismissed from a federal action "shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period." (§ 1367(d).) 5
or controversy. (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, supra, 59
Cal.4th 618, 622.) If the basis for federal court jurisdiction dissolves in a case in which
the federal court has exercised supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, the federal
court may dismiss the state claims, leaving them to be refiled in state court. (28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3); City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, supra, at p. 622.) When this occurs,
federal laws provides a grace period allowing any otherwise time-barred state claims to
be refiled in state court no later than 30 days after the federal court dismissed them. (28
U.S.C. § 1367(d); City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, supra, at p. 622.)
The statute of limitations for Kuba's causes of action is the same as for personal
injury causes of action, which is currently two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1; Gatto v.
Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 760; West Shield Investigations & Sec. Consultants
v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 935, 951-953.) Kuba's causes of action accrued
when they were complete with all their elements or, stated differently, when the wrongful
act was done and consequent liability arose. (Norgart v. Upjohn (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383,
397; Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1531.)
The allegedly wrongful act in this case was SeaWorld's refusal to allow Kuba to engage
in expressive activities on its property. As this act occurred on March 31, 2007, Kuba's
causes of action became time-barred on March 31, 2009, unless Kuba filed his complaint
within 30 days of the federal court's dismissal of the state claims.
The federal court dismissed Kuba's state claims on April 21, 2011, when the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision granting summary judgment for
SeaWorld on Kuba's federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on
6
Kuba's state claims. (Kuba v. SeaWorld, Inc., supra, 428 Fed.Appx. at p. 730 & fn. 1;
Kendrick v. City of Eureka (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 364, 371.) Kuba did not file his
complaint until almost 10 months later on February 3, 2012. Accordingly, his claims are
time-barred. (28 U.S.C. § 1367(d); City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, supra, 59
Cal.4th at p. 622.)
The fact Kuba is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief does not alter our
conclusion. "[T]he nature of the right sued upon and not the form of action nor the relief
demanded determines the applicability of the statute of limitations under our code."
(Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society (1944) 23 Cal.2d 719, 733; Carter v.
Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 412.)
We are also unpersuaded the statute of limitations is extended under either the
continuing violation doctrine or the theory of continuous accrual. "The continuing
violation doctrine aggregates a series of wrongs or injuries for purposes of the statute of
limitations, treating the limitations period as accruing for all of them upon commission or
sufferance of the last of them." (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55
Cal.4th 1185, 1192 (Aryeh).) The doctrine does not apply where, as here, the alleged
wrong was discrete and independently actionable and it was not necessary for a series of
harms to accumulate for the alleged wrong to become apparent. (Id. at p. 1198.)
Similarly, "under the theory of continuous accrual, a series of wrongs or injuries
may be viewed as each triggering its own limitations period, such that a suit for relief
may be partially time-barred as to older events but timely as to those within the
applicable limitations period." (Aryeh, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1192.) The application of
7
the theory of continuous accrual is generally limited to circumstances where a recurring
obligation exists and each new breach of the obligation provides all the elements of a
claim, which may be treated as an independently actionable wrong triggering its statute of
limitations. (Id. at p. 1199.) As the record does not show the existence of a recurring
obligation by SeaWorld toward Kuba or that SeaWorld committed an independently
actionable wrong within the preceding two years, the theory does not apply in this case.
II
Summary Judgment
Even if Kuba's causes of action were not time-barred, he has not established the
court erred in granting summary judgment. "Summary judgment is warranted when 'all
the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' [Citation.] Defendants
moving for summary judgment meet this burden by showing that one or more elements of
a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to the action.
[Citation.] Once a defendant makes this showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to set
forth specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of
action or defense. [Citations.]
"We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo, 'considering "all of
the evidence set forth in the [supporting and opposition] papers, except that to which
objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all [uncontradicted] inferences
reasonably deducible from the evidence." ' [Citations.] 'In independently reviewing a
motion for summary judgment, we apply the same three-step analysis used by the
8
superior court. We identify the issues framed by the pleadings, determine whether the
moving party has negated the opponent's claims, and determine whether the opposition
has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.' " (Van v. Target Corp.
(2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1382.)
A
Violation of Liberty of Speech Clause Claim
1
"The free speech guarantee of the California Constitution provides: 'Every person
may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being
responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of
speech or press.' (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a).) [¶] In considering a free speech
claim under article I, 'we begin with the unquestioned proposition that the California
Constitution is an independent document and its constitutional protections are separate
from and not dependent upon the federal Constitution . . . .' [Citations.] 'The state
Constitution's free speech provision is "at least as broad" as [citation] and in some ways
is broader than [citations] the comparable provision of the federal Constitution's First
Amendment.' [Citation.] Unlike the First Amendment, California's free speech clause
'specifies a "right" to freedom of speech explicitly and not merely by implication,' 'runs
against . . . private parties as well as governmental actors' and expressly 'embrace[s] all
subjects.' [Citation.] However, '[m]erely because our provision is worded more
expansively and has been interpreted as more protective than the First
Amendment . . . does not mean that it is broader than the First Amendment in all its
9
applications.' [Citations.] Our case law interpreting California's free speech clause has
given respectful consideration to First Amendment case law for its persuasive value,
while making clear that 'federal decisions interpreting the First Amendment are not
Nonetheless, when a property owner holds private property open for use by the general
public, the property may, in certain circumstances, become the functional equivalent of a
public forum subject to the exercise of state constitutional speech and assembly rights.
(Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (2012) 55
Cal.4th 1083, 1091-1092 (Ralphs Grocery).) To constitute the functional equivalent of a
public forum, an area on private property must be designed and furnished to induce
patrons to congregate for entertainment, relaxation, or conversation and not merely to
walk from a parking area, to walk from one place to another on the property, or to view
the property owner's merchandise and advertising displays. (Id. at pp. 1093, 1104.)
We need not devote extended analysis to whether the sidewalk in front of
SeaWorld's ticketing entrance is the functional equivalent of a public forum because
Kuba expressly disavows any reliance on the Ralphs Grocery case and related authorities,
choosing instead to rely solely on traditional public forum authorities. We nevertheless
13
note just as there is no evidence the sidewalk has ever been held open for public
discourse purposes, there is no evidence it is designed and furnished to induce patrons to
congregate for entertainment, relaxation, or conversation. Thus, even if Kuba had relied
on the Ralph Grocery case and related authorities, he has not established there is a triable
issue of material fact as to whether the sidewalk is the functional equivalent of a public
forum.
III
Violation of Civil Code Section 52.1 Claim
Subdivisions (a) and (b) of Civil Code section 52.1 collectively authorize an
individual action at law, a suit in equity, or both, against anyone who interferes, or
attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with another's exercise or
enjoyment of his or her constitutional rights. (Jones v. Kmart Corp. (1998) 17 Cal.4th
329, 331; Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 881-
883.) However, speech alone is not sufficient to support such an action unless: (1) the
speech threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons; (2) the speech
causes the specific person or group of persons to reasonably fear violence will be
committed against them or their property; and (3) the speaker had the apparent ability to
carry out the threat. (Civ. Code, § 52.1, subd. (j).)
Kuba bases his statutory claim on SeaWorld's alleged threat to tow the
demonstrators' vehicles unless they left SeaWorld's leasehold. This threat does not
provide sufficient support for Kuba's claim because it is not a threat of violence against a
specific person or group of persons. It is also not the type of threat that would cause a
14
specific person or group of persons to reasonably fear violence will be committed against
them or their property. Accordingly, Kuba has not established there is a triable issue of
material fact as to his cause of action for violating Civil Code section 52.1.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their appeal costs.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MCDONALD, J.
AARON, J.
15
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred and that the sidewalk in front of the amusement park was neither a traditional public forum nor the functional equivalent of one. Additionally, the court held that a threat to tow vehicles did not constitute a threat of violence under Civil Code section 52.1.
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs' state law claims were time-barred under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(d).
Whether the sidewalk in front of the amusement park constitutes a traditional public forum under the California Constitution.
Whether the threat to tow vehicles constitutes a prohibited threat of violence under Civil Code section 52.1.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Kuba's causes of action became time-barred on March 31, 2009, unless Kuba filed his complaint within 30 days of the federal court's dismissal of the state claims.”
“Consequently, Kuba has not established there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether the sidewalk is a traditional public forum.”