Quantcast

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Sunday, April 28, 2024

Appeals Court backs plaintiffs in lawsuit over alleged abusive surfers, 'Lunada Bay Boys'

State Court
Lunada

LOS ANGELES – The California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District backed a Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruling rejecting a motion for an anti-SLAPP judgment by defendants claiming their freedom of speech was impinged.

In a decision filed last month, the appeals court said the defendants, ocean surfers, instead allegedly conspired to commit assault.

“The (defendants) harassment of non-locals, the trail-obstructing, rock-throwing, running over with surfboards, the punching, theft, the vandalism, the sexual harassment, threats and the intimidation. None of this is protected speech or petitioning activity,” the appeals court concluded.

The defendants are known locally as the “Lunada Bay Boys.”

“Lunada Bay is a premier surf spot, located in Palos Verdes Estates,” the opinion stated. “The Lunada Bay Boys are alleged to be a group of young and middle-aged men, local to Palos Verdes Estates, who consider themselves to be the self-appointed guardians of Lunada Bay. One of their tenets is to keep outsiders away from the surf location through threats and violence. The plaintiffs are non-locals who have tried to surf Lunada Bay, but encountered harassment by the Bay Boys. They brought suit against the Bay Boys and more than a dozen of its individual members.”

In August 2016, the plaintiffs represented by Corey Spencer and Diana Smoluchowska-Miernik, sued the defendants including Charlie Mowat and Michael Thiel in Superior Court. The two Bay Boy defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit under provisions of the anti-SLAPP law, a law that prohibits a plaintiff from using a court hearing (and its cost) to deny a defendant their First Amendment Rights of free speech.

The Superior Court denied the motion by the defendants. Mowat and Thiel appealed.

According to the underlying complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the Bay Boys blocked public access to the beaches of Palos Verdes Estates, Lunada Bay in particular, for over 40 years.

In what is called a “multi-generational practice of extreme localism,” members of the surfing group used physical violence, threats of bodily harm, vandalism to visitors' vehicles, verbal harassment and other intimidation to enforce an unwritten rule, “If you don’t live here, you don’t surf here," the brief said. Members of the Bay Boys reportedly believed it was disrespectful for outsiders to visit, use or even photograph their beach.

"The Bay Boys were accused of allegedly obstructing outsiders’ access to the beach trails, throwing rocks, running people over with surfboards in the water, punching outsiders, stealing outsiders’ wallets, wetsuits and surfboards, vandalizing vehicles and personal property, including slashing tires, waxing written slurs onto vehicle windows, making threats against outsiders, intimidating outsiders with verbal insults, gestures, and threats of serious injury,” the brief said.

The court document added that due in part to the local police’s claimed unwillingness to pursue complaints against the Bay Boys, individual plaintiffs and other would-be surfers who allegedly were harassed by the surf group were often unable to identify the specific individuals who harassed them.

In January 2016, plaintiff Spencer was allegedly told by the Bay Bays, “You can’t surf here, kook.” When Spencer was in the water, one of the Bay Boys allegedly ran over Spencer with a surfboard, slicing his hand open.

The same day, plaintiff Miernik also went to surf Lunada Bay and was allegedly threatened by Bay Boy David Melo, who screamed at her that she would get hurt if she stayed.

This was overheard by a police officer who briefly detained Melo, the complaint stated.

In February 2016, more harassment of the two plaintiffs allegedly followed.

The appeals court decided the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the complaint failed because the cause of action did not arise from a protected activity (free speech).

The appeals court ordered defendants Thiel and Mowat to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on appeal. A plaintiffs’ request for sanctions for the pursuit of a frivolous appeal also was denied  

   

More News