Opinion
No. 01-56579.
Argued and Submitted December 4, 2007.
Filed July 7, 2010.
Barry A. Fisher, Fleishman Fisher, Los Angeles, CA, David M. Liberman, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Claudia McGee Henry, Los Angeles, CA, John M. Werlich, Law Offices of John M. Werlich, Westlake Village, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-03616-CBM.
Before: PREGERSON, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This order is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This case is hereby resubmitted as of July 1, 2010.
On May 13, 1997, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc., and others ("ISKCON") filed an action against the City of Los Angeles and others ("City") alleging that section 23.27(c) of the City of Los Angeles Administrative Code, which prohibits any person from soliciting and immediately receiving funds at Los Angeles International Airport ("LAX"), violates California's Liberty of Speech Clause and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
On August 2, 2001, after protracted litigation, the district court held that section 23.27(c) violated the California Constitution because LAX was a public forum under California law and because section 23.27(c) was not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction on speech at LAX. Accordingly, the district court permanently enjoined the City from enforcing section 23.27(c). The district court did not reach the federal constitutional claim. The City timely appealed.
On June 9, 2008, after more protracted litigation, we issued an order requesting the California Supreme Court to determine whether LAX is a public forum under the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court granted the request, and on March 25, 2010, the Court issued an opinion, which held that, regardless of whether LAX is a public forum, section 23.27(c) is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.
When we apply California law, we are required to follow the holdings of the California Supreme Court. See Aceves v. All-state Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we grant the City's request to dissolve the injunction that bars enforcement of section 23.27(c). We reverse the district court's summary judgment order in favor of ISKCON and remand to the district court to consider in the first instance ISKCON's remaining federal constitutional claim.