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
First Amendment
Public Monument

Michiko Shiota Gingery, Koichi Mera, Gaht-US Corp. v. City of Glendale, Scott Ochoa

Published: Aug. 30, 2014 | Result Date: Aug. 4, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:14-cv-01291 Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William B. Declercq
(Taylor, English & Duma LLP)


Defendant

Frank J. Broccolo
(Baute Crochetiere & Gilford LLP)

Laura Richardson

Miah Yun

Bradley H. Ellis

Michael J. Garcia

Ann M. Mauer

Christopher Munsey
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)

Andrew C. Rawcliffe
(Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley PC)


Facts

Michiko Gingery, Koichi Mera, and Gaht-Us Corp. sued the City of Glendale in relation to a statue the city erected in Glendale's Central Park.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that the city installed a 1,100 pound bronze statue of a young girl dressed in Korean garb in the city's Central Park. The accompanying plaque described the human rights violations that occurred against women who were forced into sexual slavery by the Armed Forces of Japan during the wars between 1932 and 1945.

Plaintiffs alleged that the statue interfered with foreign affairs by disrupting foreign policy regarding the resolution of the historical debate concerning "comfort women." Plaintiffs also alleged a second cause of action, alleging that the city failed to comply with Robert's Rules of Order when it approved the statue's placement.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The city filed an anti-SLAPP motion, and a motion to dismiss. The city argued, among others, that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.

Result

The court agreed to dismiss plaintiffs' first claim for violations of the U.S. Constitution's provisions concerning foreign affairs powers and the Supremacy clause because plaintiffs lacked standing to bring that claim. Alternatively, the court found that plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim. As such, it dismissed plaintiffs' first claim. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims. As such, it dismissed plaintiffs' second claim without prejudice.


#99629

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

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