Bolbol v. Rowell Ranch Rodeo, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:23-cv-01652
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bolbol v. Rowell Ranch Rodeo, Judge Chhabria denied a temporary restraining order because plaintiffs lacked evidence of likely speech interference this year.
The plaintiffs seeking to demonstrate at the rodeo and the defendant entities and officials whose conduct at the event was challenged.
What happened
In Bolbol v. Rowell Ranch Rodeo, Inc., the plaintiffs sought an emergency order restricting the defendants’ conduct at the upcoming rodeo. They argued that defendants had interfered with their free-speech rights at the rodeo the previous year.
The court found that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on a claim about last year’s events, but not that their speech would likely be meaningfully restricted this year. Defendants’ sworn statements described plans to protect lawful demonstrations and allow leafleting outside designated areas. The court also found that the plaintiffs waited too long to seek emergency relief.
The court denied the temporary restraining order. Judge Chhabria said the plaintiffs had not shown likely speech interference or irreparable harm, and that their delay independently weighed against emergency relief.
The detailed version
- Bolbol v. Rowell Ranch Rodeo, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-01652
- Vince Chhabria
- May 19, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order, an emergency court order intended to provide short-term relief, concerning their planned attendance and demonstrations at the rodeo. The motion relied on evidence about events from the previous year. The plaintiffs said that what happened then was unusual and that they had regularly demonstrated at the rodeo without problems before that year.
Court’s analysis
The court said the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the defendants, or at least Rowell Ranch, interfered with their free-speech rights the previous year. But the court found that they had not shown a likelihood that defendants would prevent them from meaningfully expressing themselves at this year’s rodeo.
The court ordered the defendants to submit sworn declarations about what the plaintiffs should expect. The Park District stated that its rangers would not be at the rodeo and would have no interaction with protesters. The Sheriff’s Office stated that its deputies would be instructed not to impede lawful speech. Rowell Ranch stated that it had created a second free-speech area near the pedestrian entrance, that demonstrators could distribute leaflets and engage attendees outside the designated areas, and that the areas limited only the placement of tables, tents, or umbrella stands. Rowell Ranch said this restriction was intended to keep an emergency-vehicle roadway clear. The court said that, on the emergency record before it, this restriction was likely sufficiently tailored to an important government interest and likely constitutional.
Because the plaintiffs offered no contrary evidence about this year’s event, the court found that they had not shown a likelihood of success on a speech claim based on this year’s rodeo. The court therefore also found that they had not shown likely irreparable harm, meaning harm that could not adequately be repaired later.
The court separately criticized the timing of the request. The plaintiffs said they had longstanding plans to attend the rodeo, filed their complaint on April 6, 2023, and sought the emergency order only ten days before the event. The court also noted that they apparently had not contacted defendants beforehand about the upcoming rodeo. It said that this delay was especially troubling because the case involved constitutional claims and multiple public and private defendants, matters that could benefit from more careful consideration and possibly an evidentiary hearing.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. It did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice. The opinion addressed the likelihood of the plaintiffs’ speech claim for this year’s rodeo but did not enter a final ruling on the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.