Tournahu v. Flynn

Background

The plaintiffs were individuals who had previously lived at an encampment in Steamer Landing Park in Petaluma, California. They filed this case seeking an extension of an injunction in a related proceeding or a new injunction barring the City of Petaluma from evicting encampment residents. The court allowed the earlier injunction to expire on June 13, 2022, but directed the City to make its best efforts, in good faith, to contact each plaintiff, offer shelter, and offer to store each plaintiff’s belongings before eviction. The City was also required to document its outreach and offers.

Four plaintiffs—Melody Thornton, Jorge Luis Gonzalez Vazquez, Matthew Irving, and Robert Tournahu—submitted declarations asserting that they had not received meaningful offers to store their belongings. They moved for an order requiring defendants to explain why they should not be held in civil contempt, which concerns disobedience of a specific and definite court order.

Evidence and Analysis

The defendants submitted a declaration from Lieutenant Nicholas McGowan stating that Petaluma police officers met with every person onsite, told residents to identify property they wanted stored, and provided plastic bags. He also stated that every item designated for storage was accepted and taken to storage. The defendants submitted 77 body-camera videos and later provided specific video citations concerning offers made to Gonzalez, Thornton, and Irving.

The court reviewed the video evidence and verified the defendants’ representations. The defendants also submitted sworn declarations from officers describing outreach and storage offers to residents who agreed to speak with them. As to Tournahu, the defendants represented that he refused to meet or speak with City personnel on the day of the encampment’s clearing. They provided evidence that they had communicated with the plaintiffs’ advocate, Robbie Powelson, and told him that the City would store the plaintiffs’ property.

The court explained that substantial compliance with a court order is a defense to civil contempt when the responding party has made every reasonable effort to comply. Based on the videos, declarations, and other evidence, the court found that defendants made specific storage offers to Irving, Gonzalez, and Thornton. For Tournahu, the court found that the defendants’ communication with his advocate, together with their broader outreach efforts, supported the conclusion that they had substantially complied with the order.

Ruling

Judge Edward M. Chen denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause and request to hold defendants in contempt. The court found no basis for requiring further proceedings on the allegations that defendants failed to make meaningful storage offers. The order disposed of Docket No. 29.