This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
First Amendment

Friederich Koenig v. Town of Yucca Valley and Shane Stueckle, in his official capacity, as acting City Manager and Deputy Manager of the Town of Yucca Valley

Published: Jul. 3, 2015 | Result Date: Sep. 17, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 5:14-cv-01310-R-SH Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John B. Barriage


Defendant

June S. Ailin
(Aleshire & Wynder LLP)

Lona N. Laymon

Christy Marie Lopez


Facts

Friederich Koenig sued the Town of Yucca Valley and Shane Stueckle, the acting City Manager and Deputy Manager of the Town of Yucca Valley, in connection with an alleged civil rights violation.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that he and his neighbor, David Falossi were engaged in litigation related to Falossi's home occupation use at his residence. Falossi applied to the Town of Yucca Valley for a home occupation permit. Plaintiff prepared a report on his position regarding the issuance of the permit and submitted it to Yucca Valley officials. For purposes of the town's staff report to the planning commission for the hearing on Falossi's permit, town staff provided only portions of the report that appeared not to be subject to a protective order issued by the court in the litigation between plaintiff and Falossi. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Yucca Valley contending the omission of portions of his report constituted a restraint on his speech and petition rights. Plaintiff asserted claims for civil rights violations and sought monetary damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Defendants argued that plaintiff could have submitted the omitted portions of his report to the planning commission at the hearing but did not do so. In addition, the report in its entirety had been submitted to the town council, to which plaintiff had already appealed the granting of the permit before this lawsuit was filed. Further, the staff report was government speech over which the town had sole control of the content.

Result

The court granted the municipality's dismissal motion.

Other Information

The matter is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


#115567

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390