Federal Court Denies Occupy San Diego’s Request for Injunction Against City and Police

by on December 1, 2011 · 3 comments

in Civil Rights, San Diego

We have just heard that the local Federal Court has denied the application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) by Occupy San Diego against the City of San Diego and the Police Department.  Judge William Hayes made the ruling.

The ruling took a unusual while to come down – nearly a week and half. It was on November 22, 2011 that the Occupy SD movement went to court seeking a TRO to prevent the City from enforcing San Diego Municipal Code section 54.0110. The Muni Code section has been used by the City and police to prohibit people from placing any object on City property.And of course, Civic Center Plaza – where the occupiers have demonstrated for five weeks now – is city property.

As such, anything that anyone ever placed on the City property could subject them to arrest. The City has been using this ordinance to prevent Occupy SD from erecting tables, canopies or signs in the Civic Center Plaza.

Attorney Todd T. Cardiff represented the plaintiffs, Eugene Davidovich, Davina Lynch, and John Kenney – all members of the Occupy movement or among its supporters. Bryan Pease is the lead attorney on the case.

We will post additional information when it becomes available.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar John Rippo December 2, 2011 at 9:34 am

Curious….The Civ is City property for purposes of putting anything on it, yet private property for purposes of voter registration—as Lutz found out. It can’t be both and neither is posted. Seems Occ needs sharper lawyers.


avatar Anna Daniels December 2, 2011 at 10:32 am

You raised a good issue John. It’s worth noting that the push locally and nationally is to privatize government services and public spaces. What can we as citizens expect in return? The question you posed in your post answers that question-it means whatever the private interests and political cronies say it is.


avatar Sage V. December 5, 2011 at 2:44 pm

As I heard it, the city’s attorney asserted laches, which is an estoppel motion the Occupier’s attorney neither anticipated nor answered, which pretty much killed any chance of a timely ruling. What’s interesting is that some of us expected the judge to deny the TRO without prejudice, but the ruling against the Occupiers was highly prejudicial. I think its a combination of the Occupier’s attorney not doing such a good job and the court pretty much saying “here’s a preemptive ruling to make sure you don’t come back to challenge on these same grounds again.” My advice would be find a better attorney, a different judge, and a new issue to challenge on.


Leave a Comment

Before clicking Submit, please complete this simple statement to help us weed out the bots... Thank you! *

Older Article:

Newer Article: