Appeals court ruling in Lunada Bay Boys case leaves city liable for surf localism – Daily News

A California appeals court has ruled that Palos Verdes Estates could be sued by the state if it turned a blind eye to the Lunada Bay Boys’ decades-long harassment of suburban surfers seeking to enjoy the area’s coveted waves. We have ruled that we may be held liable under the Coastal Law.

The ruling brought Palos Verdes Estates back. Lawsuit filed in 2016 by two surfers who experienced the group’s anger firsthand and felt the city wasn’t doing enough to stop it. had dismissed the city from a lawsuit that individually named 15 Bayboys.

Now, not only is the city likely to be in danger again, plaintiffs’ attorneys and the California Coastal Commission have argued that the Court of Appeals’ broader interpretation of the Coastal Act would have challenged the city to confront aggressive and territorial behavior. It said it would set a “monumental” precedent that could A number of local surfers, called surf localism, face fines of up to $15,000 per day.

Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, called the Second District Court of Appeals’ ruling “a victory for coastal law and for those who believe that the best of California should be accessible to all.” ’ he called.

“It is historic that a court has declared that harassing visitors by bullies to Lunada Bay is as much a violation of coastal law as an unauthorized rock fortress, and that the city will continue to operate on the coast. We hope that we will work to ensure that some of them are truly released to the public,” said Huckelbridge. “We look forward to working with them to improve the trail, add benches, put up signage of his access to the public, and display binoculars, all of which will make the public more welcoming. To make you feel like you are there.”

Curt Franklin, one of the lawyers representing surfers Corey Spencer and Diana Reed, said other seaside cities should be noted.

“It is important to let cities know that they cannot sit back and watch this. They need to act or they will ultimately face coastal law risks including penalties.” It’s going to happen,” said Franklin.

global spotlight

Known locally for their aggressiveness, the Lunada Bay Boys stepped into the global spotlight in 2015. two Guardian reporters Catch the Surfer’s Threat hidden camera.

“The reason there’s a lot of space is because we keep it that way. We[swear]and annoy people,” one surfer told the pair. I will burn you.”

Officers later appeared disdainful, stating that the group was “notorious” in the community.

“It’s literally like a schoolyard game for kids, and they don’t want you playing on the swings,” said the unidentified officer. That’s what it is. If you feel uncomfortable, don’t do it.”

Former police chief Tim Brown once admitted in a video about surfer localism that the entire community doesn’t accept outsiders.

“I mean, they’re paying a price to live here … they have beautiful views of the ocean from most of the houses in the city,” he said. “I mean, they’re protecting the whole community, surfers or not.”

Those who surf at Lunada Bay “have an ownership” of the gem of a surfing spot, he said.

“Beach Privatization”

of original lawsuit Palos Verdes Estates has failed to stop the Bay Boys’ intimidation and violence against outsiders for years, implying that the group build an unauthorized rock fort on the cliff side of public Lunada Bay. It claims that it was permitted within

“They have virtually, really privatized the beach and physically, built a headquarters there like a dog,” Franklin said.

One of the plaintiffs, Spencer, allegedly had his hand slit when Babyboy ran him over with a surfboard. Reed, on the other hand, was allegedly sexually harassed by members of the group.

“People don’t seem to take it seriously because it’s surfing,” Franklin said. increase.”

The lawsuit also accuses the city of ignoring complaints and facilitating efforts to ward off non-locals by targeting visitors with parking tickets and towing vehicles.

City disappointed by verdict

The city denies the allegations and claims it never violated coastal law.

Attorney Ed Richards, who represents Palos Verdes Estates, said he believed the state lawsuit would likewise be dismissed. federal civil rights litigationsubmitted by same surferwas 2018.

“I am understandably disappointed with the court’s decision,” Richards said. doing.”

Richards said he does not believe the appeals ruling will set a precedent because it deals with limited circumstances.

Enacted in 1976 to protect the state’s coastline, the California Coastal Act prohibits unauthorized development that interferes with public access to the state’s coastline.

However, contrary to common usage, the Act defines “development” to include “changes in the intensity of water use, or access to water,” and “direct or indirect, physical or It should be interpreted broadly to include all obstacles that prevent access to water.” According to a February 27 appeal ruling written by Chief Justice Lawrence Rubin.

The panel ruled that the alleged harassment committed by Rock Fortress and the Bay Boys could be considered a violation under the Coastal Act because it created a barrier to the public. The claimed city may be held liable as the valid land owner.

“We believe that changes in access to water caused by systematic harassment of people seeking access to water and similar obstacles are just as important to water as they are caused by physical obstacles. ,” Rubin wrote.

Rubin likened the city’s alleged complicity in the Bay Boys blockade to another highly publicized incident in which Half Moon Bay property owners attempted to restrict access to the road. Martin’s Beach By locking the gates and posting guards at the entrance.

“If closing gates and manning guards constitutes the development of Martins Beach, set up headquarters at Rock Fort, physically block trail access to the beach, and intimidate outsiders with word and deed. may,” Rubin wrote.

No substantive ruling

Overturning the first instance dismissal, the Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits. The panel found that the lower court had misinterpreted the Coastal Act’s “narrow” interpretation and that plaintiffs “sufficiently asserted an indictable conspiracy in which the city participated,” allowing the case against the city to proceed again.

So far, 12 of the Bay Boys said to be named in the case have settled, with some agreeing to stay away from Lunada Bay for up to a year, while others have instead paid between $25,000 and $90,000. There were 7 people who chose to pay.

The case will be returned to Superior Court to resolve outstanding claims against the two remaining individuals and the city.