## Facts

- David McCalden contracted with the California Library Association (CLA) to rent exhibit space and to present a conference program at the CLA annual conference at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles.
- McCalden described his exhibit and program as focused on civil liberties and “Holocaust revisionist” viewpoints.
- McCalden alleged that, after the contracts were formed, several entities and individuals pressured CLA and the hotel to exclude him because of his views.
- He alleged the American Jewish Committee warned that, unless CLA canceled his participation, the conference would be disrupted, property damaged, and CLA “wiped out.”
- He alleged the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution urging CLA to remove him and to sever the City’s participation in the conference.
- He alleged the Los Angeles Police Department reported threats against CLA’s director if McCalden were allowed to participate.
- He alleged the Simon Wiesenthal Center planned a nearby demonstration that created a reasonable probability of violence and property damage.
- CLA canceled McCalden’s exhibit and program arrangements, and the hotel did not permit his participation.
- McCalden sued asserting, among other claims, breach of contract, tortious interference, violations of California Civil Code § 51.7 (Ralph Act), and federal civil-rights conspiracy claims; the district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged “violence, or intimidation by threat of violence” under California Civil Code § 51.7 based on McCalden’s association with a group defined by controversial political/historical views.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims for breach of contract and tortious interference arising from cancellation allegedly induced by threats and pressure.
3. Whether the complaint stated a federal conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by adequately alleging a qualifying class and class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.
4. Whether First Amendment protections for petitioning and protest required dismissal at the pleading stage where the complaint alleged threats of violence and coercive intimidation.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- The court held the complaint plausibly stated a Ralph Act (§ 51.7) claim because it alleged intimidation by threat of violence tied to McCalden’s association with an unpopular viewpoint group, and the statute’s protected categories are not necessarily limited to enumerated traits.
- The court held the complaint plausibly stated breach of contract and tortious interference claims based on alleged conduct that induced cancellation.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim because the alleged “Holocaust revisionist” class did not fit within the limited scope of classes recognized under controlling § 1985(3) precedent.
- The court declined to resolve First Amendment defenses on the pleadings where the allegations included threats of violence and intimidation, and remanded the surviving claims for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor; the question is plausibility of a claim, not ultimate proof.
- California Civil Code § 51.7 reaches intimidation by threat of violence; allegations of threatened disruption, property damage, or physical harm can satisfy the pleading burden.
- The Ralph Act’s protected characteristics may be construed broadly where statutory text and amendments indicate enumerated categories are illustrative, supporting claims by persons targeted due to controversial political or ideological associations.
- Contract cancellation allegedly induced by third-party threats or pressure can support breach of contract and tortious interference claims at the pleading stage when the complaint identifies the contracts, cancellations, and the inducing conduct.
- A § 1985(3) claim requires allegations of a conspiracy motivated by class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus within the statute’s narrowly construed scope; unpopular viewpoint groups generally do not suffice absent qualifying characteristics under controlling precedent.
- First Amendment protections do not necessarily bar claims at the pleading stage when the complaint alleges threats of violence or coercive intimidation rather than only peaceful petitioning or protest.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that allegations of threats and intimidation connected to exclusion from a private conference were sufficient to proceed on state Ralph Act and contract-related theories, but not on a federal § 1985(3) conspiracy theory, and remanded for factual development on the surviving claims.


McCalden v. Cal. Libr. Ass’n, 955 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1992)