Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore

This page summarizes both the trial court and appellate court proceedings.

• Kathleen R., in her capacity as an individual, Kathleen R., in her capacity as a taxpayer, and Kathleen R., in her capacity as guardian ad litem for Brandon P., a minor v. City of Livermore and Does 1 to 10, Case No. V-015266-4, filed May 28, 1998, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Livermore-Pleasanton-Dublin Branch.
• Kathleen R., et. al. v. City of Livermore, Appeal to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division 4, Appeal No. A086349.

Nature of the Case. A parent of a child who uses Internet access computers at a public library seeks to compel the library to install blocking software on children's computers within the library. The parent lost in the trial court, and has appealed. The parent lost again in the California Court of Appeal.

Plaintiff. Kathleen R. is an anonymous resident of Livermore, California, and the mother of a minor who uses the Livermore Public Libraries. Attorney: Michael Millen, 119 Calle Marguerita, Suite 100, Los Gatos, CA, 95032; 408-871-0777; MikeMillen@aol.com.

Defendants. City of Livermore, and 10 Doe defendants. Attorney: Dan Sodergren, Assistant City Attorney, City of Livermore, 3600 Robertson Park Road, Livermore, California, 94550; 925-373-5120.

Facts. The City of Livermore is a community of about 70,000 about 45 minutes east of San Francisco in Alameda County. It is home to ranches, wineries, and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory weapons research facility run by the federal government and the University of California. Also, some high tech workers and businesses from the nearby Silicon Valley are moving to Livermore because property is more affordable there. The City operates a public library system which has computers with Internet access. These computers do not have blocking software, and children's access to computers is not restricted. The plaintiff, Kathleen R., is the mother of a child who used these computers to download pornographic pictures. The City of Livermore subsequently refused her request to install blocking software on computers that children would use to access the Internet.  This lawsuit followed.

Issues. The original Complaint against the City of Livermore asserts three legal theories.  First, the Plaintiff alleges that the use of public funds to pay for children's access to pornography constitutes a "waste of public funds" under Section 526 or the California Code of Civil Procedure. Second, the Plaintiff alleges that the library's policy constitutes a "nuisance."  Third, the plaintiff pleads "premises liability." Defendants are likely to argue that freedom of speech requires that Internet access not be blocked. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint adds a fourth theory: substantive due process. Also, the Defendant plead that Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 bars the action.

Status. Judge Hernandez granted the Defendant's demurrer to the original complaint, but allowed the Plaintiffs to amend the complaint, which they did. On January 14, he sustained the demurrer to the amended complaint, and dismissed the suit. On the first demurrer, he never addressed the three underlying claims. Rather, he ruled that Section 230 bars the suit.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the First District Court of Appeal (California's intermediate appellate court) on about March 11, 1999. The parties agreed to a very extended briefing schedule. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2001.

The City of Livermore is supported by two amicus curaie briefs. One was filed by the law firm of Cooley Godward on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, 48 California cities, and two independent library boards. The other was filed by the ACLU Northern California on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way.

The Court of Appeal issued its opinion upholding the trial court on March 6, 2001.

Chronology with Links to Pleading and other Materials

• 3/31/98. Letter from Michael Millen to Thomas Curry requesting use of blocking software.
• 4/17/98. Letter from Thomas Curry to Michael Millen refusing to install blocking software.
• 5/28/98. Complaint filed in Alameda County, California. (Story.)
• 7/10/98. Demurer and Memorandum in Support filed by City of Livermore. (Story.)
• 7/10/98. Amicus Curiae Brief of ACLU filed.
• 10/13/98. Opposition to Demurrer filed by Plaintiffs.
• 10/20/98. Reply to Opposition to Demurrer filed by City of Livermore.
• 10/20/98. Court sustains defendant's demurrer. (Story.)
• 11/3/98. Plaintiffs file Amended Complaint.
• 1/4/99. Brief in Support of Demurrer to Amended Complaint.
• 1/6/99. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Demurrer.
• 1/11/99. Reply to Opposition to Demurrer filed by City of Livermore.
• 1/14/99. Court sustains defendant's demurrer to amended complaint (dismisses case).  (Livermore Press Release | Story.)
• 3/11/99. Kathleen R. filed a notice of appeal with the California 1st District Court of Appeal.
• 7/16/99. Opening Appeal Brief filed by Kathleen R.
• 10/18/99. Respondent's Brief filed by City of Livermore. See, Story.
• 10/18/99. Amicus curaie brief filed by the ACLU Northern California and PFAW.
• 11/4/99. Amicus curiae brief filed by the Calif. State Assoc. of Counties, 48 California cities, and two library boards.
• 1/10/00. Reply Brief filed by Kathleen R.
• 1/23/01. Oral argument before the California Court of Appeal.
• 3/6/01. Opinion of the Court of Appeal of the State of California affirming the trial court.

Amicus Parties.

• American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way. Attorney: Ann Brick: 415-621-2493.
• California State Association of Counties (in support of the City of Livermore). Attorneys: Cooley Godward, One Maritime Plaza, 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3580.
  • Michael Traynor: 415-693-2110; fax 415-951-3699; traynormt@cooley.com.
  • Matthew Brown: 415-693-2188; fax 415-951-3699; brownmd@cooley.com.

Related Resources.

• Filtering Facts. Pro filtering software organization which carries information about this case.
• Pacific Justice Institute, lawyers assisting Plaintiff.
• Tech Law Journal Summary of the Loudoun County Library case.
• Text of 47 USC 230, and summary of cases construing it.

Tech Law Journal Stories.

• Parent Sues Livermore Library over Internet Porn, 6/1/98.
• Livermore Seeks Dismissal of Blocking Software Suit, 7/13/98.
• Judge Rules § 230 Blocks the Livermore Library Suit, 10/21/98.
• Judge Dismisses Livermore Library Filtering Suit, 1/15/99.
• Kathleen R. Library Filtering Appeal Proceeds, 8/14/99.
• Appeal Briefs Filed in Livermore Case, 10/21/99.