holding that a timely action for injunctive relief, if meritorious, would have adequately remedied the complained of conduct
How later courts described this case
- holding that a timely action for injunctive relief, if meritorious, would have adequately remedied the complained of conduct
- concluding 9 no cause of action for damages available for alleged violation of plaintiff’s right to free speech 10 under Article I, section 2(a)
- city council member’s allegations that “threats, intimidation, and retaliation” by 8 defendants interfered with her free speech rights did not state a cause of action because “article 1, 9 section 2(a) [of the California Constitution] does not afford a right to seek money damages om 10 the circumstances presented”
- noting that the abuse clause “implicitly contemplated the continued existence of a long- established common law action for defamation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BROWN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the majority’s determination that neither the language nor the history of article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution supports an intent on the part of the drafters to include a damages remedy for violation of our state free speech clause. For the reasons set forth in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 330-332 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 482 , 58 P.3d 339 ], I would not consider any other basis for allowing a tort cause of action.
Baxter, J., concurred.