The TRO for the pet store in San Diego CA has been submitted (on paper) for argument to be heard (from what we can tell) on Friday 13th 2013.
The Pruneyard and Fashion Valley free speech rules do not apply in this situation as this small strip mall is NOT a large shopping center. People may recall that “Best Friends” managed to carve out a published case in order to demonstrate or protest directly in front of Barkworks in a large mall. This resulted ultimately over time, in Barkworks closing down. Then Macerich (mall owner company) decided that they would ban the sale of pets unless they were “rescued” type. Of course that would put an end to the AR badgering and no rescue could afford the mall in most cases anyway.
We had predicted that stopping the Protesters would fly at 90% affirmative, since there is no public forum right under these circumstances. We can’t see how judge could allow illegal conduct. See correction, albeit a little grudgingly, from correction noticed to SD Free Press:
“Despite widespread publicity (and Salinas’ participation in hearings on the ordinance) San Diego Puppy was cited by the County Animal Control for continuing to sell puppies.”
“UPDATE: (From Carolyn Chan*, Esq, Attorney for the Salinas, who vaguely implied the above sentence was some sort of legal issue)”
“In fact, the city attorney wrote up a stipulation that Mr. Salinas could sign which he chose not to do, and Mr. Salinas has therefore exercised his rights because they exist. Puppies from the San Diego location were purposely relocated due to both ongoing threats and physical altercations by protesters, which are well documented and either illegal, improper or criminal.” http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/11/pet-store-owner-battling-animal-rights-terrorists-sues-backers-of-puppy-mill-ordinance/
In fact, most of this has been shown by declarations and interviews with employees from the pet store. We are sure the Defendants could think up some defensive response (after all, we are defense attorneys) BUT we don’t believe they would be exceptionally compelling. We finally were able to view the Protester’s response, which did not shed light on illegal conduct and was 4 pages.
After finally contacting the pet store owner, we believe the actual facts discussed did not really focus on the Protester conduct which seemed to be both improper and illegal. Because we cannot tell what transpired at the hearing, we are waiting to see the transcript. *Note: Ms. Chan did not handle the hearing on 12/13/13 and was not present in court.