Bolbol v. Rowell Ranch Rodeo, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs’ claims arose from four incidents over two days at a rodeo, and the court said video evidence existed for all four. During the first incident, Rowell Ranch Rodeo volunteer Gary Houts told the plaintiffs, who were protesting animal cruelty, to go to a designated free-speech area. After they refused, Houts called the police and reported that they were blocking the entrance and parking lot, although he could see they were not.

Later that day, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Public Safety Manager Kevin Hart told the plaintiffs to go to the designated area and said that failure to do so “will not be good.” When plaintiff Cuviello asked Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputy Joshua Mayfield whether he would be arrested, Mayfield replied that Cuviello could be arrested for trespassing.

On the second day, volunteer George Ferris blocked plaintiff Bolbol’s path toward the rodeo’s back entrance for about 30 seconds and told her she needed a ticket. In the final incident, Houts backed an electric vehicle cart into Cuviello after telling him to move away from the cart.

A footnote states that both plaintiffs made clear at the hearing that they were not pursuing claims against Houts or Ferris individually. Rowell Ranch Rodeo did not dispute that it would be legally responsible for violations the plaintiffs alleged Houts and Ferris committed.

Constitutional Claims

The defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the First Amendment and California constitutional claims. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on the relevant issue.

The plaintiffs sought only an injunction, meaning a court order requiring or forbidding future conduct. The court held that they had not provided evidence of an ongoing constitutional violation supporting that relief. Cuviello testified that he had no problems with sheriff’s deputies when he protested the same rodeo event in 2023, and the opinion states that there was no evidence of problems at the 2024 rodeo.

The plaintiffs argued that the Park District’s policy requiring event hosts to establish a free-speech area created an ongoing violation. The court rejected that argument, explaining that a general requirement to establish such an area was not the same as forcing protesters into an inadequate area or prohibiting speech elsewhere. The court also found no evidence that Rowell Ranch Rodeo had harassed the plaintiffs or tried to force them into a free-speech area at rodeos since 2022.

Bane Act Claims

Neither side was entitled to summary judgment on the claims under California’s Bane Act. That law requires threats, intimidation, or coercion carried out with the intent to interfere with a constitutional right. The court said a reasonable jury could disagree about whether Mayfield’s statement about possible arrest and Hart’s statement that failure to relocate “will not be good” were threats.

The court also held that Hart’s lack of actual arrest authority did not entitle him to summary judgment. The statute refers to an apparent ability to carry out a threat, and a jury could find that the plaintiffs reasonably perceived Hart as having that ability, particularly because Hart may have been working with Mayfield, who had arrest authority.

The court further held that a jury could decide whether Ferris’s blocking of Bolbol and Houts’s backing the cart into Cuviello were threatening, coercive, or intimidating. A jury also could decide whether Ferris and Houts acted with the required intent. The court therefore denied summary judgment on these claims to both sides.

Ralph Act Claims

Neither side was entitled to summary judgment on the two Ralph Act claims against Rowell Ranch Rodeo based on Houts’s conduct: calling the police and hitting Cuviello with the cart. The Ralph Act protects people from violence or intimidation by threats of violence because of political affiliation, and the opinion states that making or threatening to make a false police report is included in intimidation by threat of violence.

The court declined to require proof of additional harm beyond experiencing discrimination-based violence. For threats of violence, the court said the statute is probably best understood to require that a reasonable person would be intimidated and that the plaintiff was actually intimidated. The court nevertheless found a material factual dispute about whether Houts’s conduct occurred because of the plaintiffs’ political affiliation. Summary judgment was therefore denied to both sides on these claims.

Assault and Battery Claims

Neither side was entitled to summary judgment on the assault and battery claims against Rowell Ranch Rodeo arising from Ferris’s interaction with Bolbol. The video showed that Ferris intentionally stepped in front of Bolbol, tried to prevent her from getting around him, and made unwanted bodily contact. The court said that nearly every element of assault and battery was satisfied, but reasonable jurors could differ on whether the contact would offend a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity. The court therefore held that these claims must go to a jury.

Cuviello was entitled to summary judgment on the assault and battery claims arising from the electric-cart incident. The court held that the video left no factual dispute that Houts’s actions constituted assault and battery and that no reasonable juror could find that hitting someone with an electric vehicle cart was not offensive contact.

The court rejected Rowell Ranch Rodeo’s arguments that the volunteers did not intend to harm the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs suffered no actual harm. It explained that intent may be shown by willful disregard of a plaintiff’s rights, and that battery does not require severe contact, pain, a physical mark, or other bodily harm.

Remedies

The defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages, treble damages, and a civil penalty under the Bane Act. The plaintiffs did not respond to the arguments concerning treble damages. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not presented clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice, as required for punitive damages.

The plaintiffs could not recover the $25,000 civil penalty under the Bane Act because, according to the court, the statute permits only city attorneys, district attorneys, and the Attorney General to seek that penalty. The court stated that the plaintiffs may seek civil penalties in connection with their Ralph Act claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment. It granted the defendants summary judgment on the First Amendment and California constitutional claims, punitive damages, treble damages, and Bane Act civil penalties. It denied summary judgment to both sides on the Bane Act claims, Ralph Act claims, and assault and battery claims arising from Ferris’s conduct. It granted Cuviello summary judgment on the assault and battery claims arising from the electric-cart incident.