Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura & San Luis Obispo, Inc. v. City of Santa Maria

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 685·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 626·20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 391·93 Daily Journal DAR 7538·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4447
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 15, 1993B063569California3,076 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

Here, we hold that a governmental entity and its agents may not offer a grant of public funds on condition that the recipient waive the constitutional right to privacy. We thus agree with the trial court which found that defendants, City of Santa Maria (City), its mayor, and city council, could not impose a grant restriction that conditioned the receipt of public funds upon the recipient’s agreement not to provide abortion services. (Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981) 29 Cal.3d 252, 284-285 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 625 P.2d 779 , 20 A.L.R.4th 1118 ].) We also hold that where, as here, the origin of the controversy is an attempt to obtain money, as opposed to vindicating a constitutional right, the trial court does not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in denying private attorney general attorney fees.

Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo, Inc. and Jane Doe (Planned Parenthood) appeal from a summary judgment contending that the trial court should have ordered a turnover of $60,000 in grant funds and awarded private attorney general fees. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.) Defendants, in their cross-appeal, contend that they…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.