• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

No. 12-_________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 8. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MIRIAM A. VOGEL DEANNE E. MAYNARD TIMOTHY F. RYAN Counsel of Record MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP MARC A. HEARRON 555 W. Fifth St., Suite 3500 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Los Angeles, CA 90013 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 213.892.5200 Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] 202.887.8740 MARCH 25, 2013 Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 QUESTION PRESENTED Shortly after petitioner opened its grocery store in Sacramento, respondent union’s agents began picketing on the store’s private property (at the entrance to the store, on the apron area, and in the parking lot). The picketing continued five days a week, eight hours each day, for several years. Because the content of the picketers’ expression was labor-related, the California Supreme Court held that two state statutes, the Moscone Act (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.3) and Section 1138.1 of the Califor- nia Labor Code, protect the union’s expressive activi- ty and bar injunctive relief to exclude the demonstrators from the store’s private property. Notwithstanding the store’s right to exclude all other kinds of expressive activities (political, religious, and so on), the California Supreme Court held that nei- ther statute violates the U.S. Constitution. In so holding, the California Supreme Court expressly disagreed with the D.C. Circuit, which has held that California’s Moscone Act is unconstitutional if so construed. Waremart Foods v. NLRB, 354 F.3d 870 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The question presented is: Whether California’s Moscone Act (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.3) and Section 1138.1 of the California Labor Code violate the U.S. Constitution by forcing property owners to open private property to the expressive activities of others based on the content of their speech. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING The parties are as stated in the caption. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Ralphs Grocery Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Food 4 Less Holdings, Inc. Food 4 Less Holdings, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fred Meyer, Inc. Fred Meyer, Inc. is a wholly owned sub- sidiary of The Kroger Co. No other publicly held company owns 10% or more of the stock of Ralphs Grocery Company. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ..................... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ....... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. vi PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ....... 1 OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRO- VISIONS INVOLVED ....................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................ 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 4 A. Legal Framework ...................................... 4 B. Factual Background .................................. 7 C. Proceedings Below ..................................... 10 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 14 REVIEW IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT’S DECI- SION CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND THE D.C. CIRCUIT ON AN ISSUE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE TO BUSINESSES ................................................... 14 A. The California Supreme Court’s Decision Conflicts With This Court’s Jurispru- dence .......................................................... 15 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page B. The California Supreme Court’s Decision Conflicts With The D.C. Circuit’s Deci- sion Regarding The Constitutionality Of The Same California Statute .................... 21 C. The Petition Presents A Question Of Vital Importance To Businesses ......................... 23 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 24 APPENDIX A: Opinion of the Supreme Court of California ............................................................. 1a APPENDIX B: Opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District ...................... 70a APPENDIX C: Order of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction ..................... 108a APPENDIX D: Minute Order of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, dated September 8, 2008 .................................... 113a APPENDIX E: Minute Order of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, dated May 28, 2008 ............................................. 117a APPENDIX F: U.S. Constitution, Amendments I, V, and XIV § 1 .................................................. 125a APPENDIX G: Moscone Act, Section 527.3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure .............. 127a v TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page APPENDIX H: Section 1138.1 of the California Labor Code .......................................................... 131a APPENDIX I: Plaintiff ’s Trial Exh. A (Cal. C.A. J.A. 482)—Photograph of Petitioner’s Store Entrance Area ........................................... 134a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Albertson’s, Inc. v. Young, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 721 (Ct. App. 2003) .................................................... 5, 17 Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) ................. passim Costco Cos. v. Gallant, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 344 (Ct. App. 2002) .......................................................... 4 Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) ......... 23 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) ............. 19 Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976) ..................... 20 Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) ........ 19 Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992) ..... 20, 21 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) ............... 23 Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75 (Ct. App. 2008) ....................................... 4 Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) ................................................................ 19 NVE Constructors, Inc. v. NLRB, 934 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir. 1991) ........................................................... 9 Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of California, 475 U.S. 1 (1986) .............................. 19 Police Dep’t of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) ............................................................... passim Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) ................................................................. 18, 19 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 592 P.2d 341 (Cal. 1979), aff’d, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) ................ 5 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) ........... 20 Van v. Target Corp., 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 497 (Ct. App. 2007) ................................................................. 5 Waremart Foods v. NLRB, 354 F.3d 870 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ......................................................... passim Waremart Foods v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 359 (Ct. App. 2001) ......................................................... 10, 11 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) ....................................................... 1 Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.: § 104 ........................................................................ 20 § 107 ........................................................................ 20 National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.: § 158(a)(1) ................................................................ 21 § 158(b)(7)(C) ............................................................. 9 Cal. Labor Code § 1138.1 .................................... passim Moscone Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.3 ......... passim OTHER AUTHORITIES 5 B.E. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Torts § 693 (10th ed. 2005) ....................................... 4 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner Ralphs Grocery Company (Ralphs) respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of California. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the Supreme Court of California (app., infra, 1a-69a) is reported at 290 P.3d 1116. The opinion of the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District (app., infra, 70a-107a) is reported at 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 88. The orders of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento (app., infra, 108a-112a, 113a-116a, 117a-124a) are unre- ported. JURISDICTION The Supreme Court of California issued its opinion on December 27, 2012. This Court’s jurisdic- tion is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). Section 2403(b) of Title 28 may apply, and this petition has been served on the Attorney General of California as required by Rule 29.4(c) of this Court. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The First and Fifth Amendments and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the Moscone Act, Cal. Civ. Proc.

Load more

  175

Copy Link