StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. CodePink
2:24-cv-06253
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs allege that access to an Orthodox synagogue in Los Angeles was blocked and several Jewish individuals were intimidated during a June 2024 protest organized to coincide with a Real Estate "Aliyah Event" at the synagogue, which they characterize as religious in nature.
- Defendants include protest organizers CodePink and PYM (with named organizational leaders), as well as WESPAC and Honor the Earth (alleged fiscal sponsors of PYM), but fiscal sponsors did not participate directly.
- Plaintiffs claim that defendants' social media posts incited the protest and that the posting of an inverted red triangle (associated with Hamas) was an act of "true threat" under the FACE Act; both direct and vicarious liability theories were raised.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under the Ku Klux Klan Act (42 U.S.C. § 1985) and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), seeking damages and injunctive relief, individually and as a class action.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim; the court addressed these on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (traceability and associational) | Actions/injuries are fairly traceable to Defendants’ conduct; StandWithUs may sue for its members | Plaintiffs' injuries not fairly traceable; StandWithUs cannot seek damages for members | Plaintiffs have standing; StandWithUs can pursue injunctive and statutory relief, not compensatory damages |
| Ku Klux Klan Act: State Action Requirement | Private conspiracy, motivated by discriminatory animus, actionable under §1985(3) | Must allege state action for §1985(3) claim based on First/Fourteenth Amendment rights | State action required; claim dismissed |
| FACE Act: Nature of Social Media Posts | Organizing Defendants' posts constituted "true threats" and incitement, especially use of inverted red triangle | Posts are pure speech, not a true threat or unprotected by First Amendment; no linkage to statutory language | CodePink's posts plausibly a true threat, claim survives; PYM's posts are protected political speech, claim dismissed |
| Vicarious Liability for Protestors’ Physical Obstruction | CodePink, PYM responsible for members’ acts under FACE, via agency/vicarious principles | No plausible agency relationship or ratification by orgs with individual protestors; fiscal sponsorship not enough | No vicarious liability for CodePink, PYM, or fiscal sponsors; fiscal sponsors’ motions to dismiss granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Loc. 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (elements and state action requirement for § 1985(3) claims)
- NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (First Amendment protection for advocacy during protest)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (standard for "true threats" not protected by the First Amendment)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (personal jurisdiction standards)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (contracts and personal jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general vs. specific jurisdiction)
- Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (vicarious liability standards in federal statutes)