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.

Constitutional Law
Equal Protection
Due Process Violation

San Francisco International Arts Festival, et al. v. London Breed, et al.

Published: Sep. 30, 2022 | Result Date: Mar. 4, 2022 | Filing Date: Oct. 19, 2020 |

Case number: 3:20-cv-07314-JD Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

James Donato

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark E. Rennie
(Law Offices of Mark Rennie )

Kenneth A. Seligson
(Law Office of Kenneth Seligson)

Matthew W. Kumin
(The Law Office of Matthew Kumin)

Robert F. Kane
(Law Offices of Robert F. Kane)


Defendant

Wayne K. Snodgrass
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Tara M. Steeley
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Sharon L. O'Grady
(Office of the Attorney General)

Anna T. Ferrari
(California Dept. of Justice)


Facts

San Francisco International Arts Festival (SFIAF) applied for permits that would allow outdoor performance at Crane Cove Park in May 2021 and the Jerry Garcia Amphitheater in September 2021. When they were denied the permits because of the limitations on public gatherings implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, SFIAF and one of its affiliated artists, Nkechi Emeruwa, sued San Francisco Mayor London Breed and California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that they were denied the permits whereas other organizations were allowed to hold events at other locations throughout San Francisco. They alleged three civil rights claims against defendant Mayor Breed on the grounds of freedom of expression, equal protection, and due process. As to both defendants, their claim was for declaratory relief based on similar grounds, declaring unconstitutional the guidelines for outdoor gatherings to the extent that they treated certain arts with less protection and more restrictions than those imposed on similarly constitutionally-protected endeavors: free speech and right to assembly.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiffs' claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction and failed to state a claim. Generally, plaintiffs' contentions were vague and did not plausibly allege any policy, custom, or practice that led to the alleged constitutional violations. Even as to the civil rights' violations, plaintiffs failed to allege that any other group was granted a permit to hold an outdoor event at the venues during the same time frame in which plaintiffs' permit applications were denied.

Result

The case was dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered for defendants. Prior to the dismissal, the City issued the requested permits.


#139527

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

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