Glovsky v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc.
17 N.E.3d 1026
Mass.2014Background
- Glovsky sought nominating signatures outside Roche Bros.' Westwood entrance but was told solicitation was prohibited on the property.
- He alleged a violation of art. 9 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and sought relief under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act for threats, intimidation or coercion.
- Roche Bros. moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the Superior Court granted the motion.
- Westwood property includes the supermarket, a bank branch, and other amenities; it is the town's only supermarket and draws a significant portion of voters.
- The court examines whether art. 9 protects signature solicitation on private property adjacent to a freestanding store and whether the act claim is viable.
- The opinion discusses Batchelder I's balancing approach and distinguishes the case from California-style public-forum analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does art. 9 protect soliciting nominating signatures on Roche Bros.' private property outside the entrance? | Glovsky contends art. 9 extends to private property outside the store. | Roche Bros. argues the right does not extend to freestanding private property outside a single-store entrance. | Yes; Glovsky plausibly alleges art. 9 right to solicit signatures outside the store. |
| Did Roche Bros. violate art. 9 by threats, intimidation or coercion? | Visconti's statement of a no-solicitation policy intimidated Glovsky and caused him to leave. | A private policy statement without police power does not constitute threats or coercion. | No; the allegation does not meet the act's threat/intimidation/coercion standard. |
| Is the declaratory relief issue moot, and may the court remand on the art. 9 claim? | Relief was sought under art. 9; mootness should not bar adjudication of the right. | The timing of collecting signatures and the election post-deadline render the matter moot. | Yes; the declaratory relief portion is moot; remand unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batchelder v. Allied Stores Int’l, Inc., 388 Mass. 83 (Mass. 1983) (art. 9 protects right to solicit nominating signatures; balance with property interests)
- PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1980) (state free-speech right extends to large shopping centers)
- Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1946) (private town-like setting can be a public forum for expressive rights)
- Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, 55 Cal.4th 1083 (Cal. 2012) (no right to petition at supermarket entrances lacking public-forum characteristics)
- PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 23 Cal.3d 899 (Cal. 1979) (California cases cited regarding public use of private property)
- Commonwealth v. Hood, 389 Mass. 581 (Mass. 1983) (distinguishes Batchelder I in art. 9/First Amendment contexts)