## Facts

- A 1995 permanent injunction was entered against Operation Rescue of California (ORC) and Robert Cochran relating to anti-abortion protest activity at a Planned Parenthood clinic.
- The injunction restricted specified protest activities on clinic property and within a 15-foot buffer zone.
- The injunction stated it applied to ORC/Cochran, their agents and those acting in concert, and also purported to apply to “all persons with actual notice” of the injunction.
- In 2001, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (PPGG), a successor entity after a merger, filed a declaratory-relief action seeking a determination that the 1995 injunction applied to protesters Rossi Foti and Jeannette and Louie Garibaldi.
- The protesters disputed that they were agents of, or acting in concert with, ORC or Cochran, and challenged any application of the injunction based only on notice.
- The Garibaldis filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16; the trial court denied the motion.
- The trial court granted PPGG summary judgment declaring the 1995 injunction applicable to Foti and the Garibaldis.
- The Garibaldis appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion and the summary judgment; Foti appealed the summary judgment; the appeals were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether a prior injunction may bind nonparties solely because they have “actual notice” of it, and whether summary judgment was proper on the question that appellants were acting “in concert or participation” with the enjoined parties.
2. Whether PPGG’s declaratory-relief action to determine the scope of the existing injunction was subject to dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the Garibaldis’ anti-SLAPP motion.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for PPGG.
- The court held there were triable issues of material fact as to whether the 1995 injunction applied to appellants through a valid basis (such as acting in concert with ORC/Cochran).
- The court rejected using the injunction’s “actual notice” language as an independent basis to bind appellants as nonparties.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Injunctions operate in personam and generally bind only the parties, their agents, and persons in active concert or participation with them.
- An injunction cannot validly bind nonparties solely because they have notice of the decree; “actual notice” language cannot expand an injunction into a generally applicable rule.
- Whether a nonparty is acting “in concert or participation” with an enjoined party is a fact-dependent inquiry that may present triable issues precluding summary judgment.
- Injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn to reach only those properly subject to the court’s equitable decree.
- A declaratory-relief action seeking judicial determination of who is bound by an existing injunction may proceed notwithstanding an anti-SLAPP motion when it is aimed at defining/enforcing the decree rather than imposing liability for protected expression as such.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion challenging a declaratory-relief action concerning an existing injunction, but reversed summary judgment because an injunction cannot bind nonparties merely by notice and factual disputes remained over whether the protesters were acting in concert with the enjoined parties.


Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Garibaldi, 107 Cal. App. 4th 345 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)