Hamburg

INTRODUCTION

Appellants, who were conducting a protest at respondent Wal-Mart’s business premises in Ukiah, were arrested for trespass after they refused to leave. They commenced this action for false arrest and violation of constitutional rights against Wal-Mart and the store manager who made the arrests as a private person. (Pen. Code, § 837.) Respondents moved for summary judgment and the motion was granted by the trial court, which thereupon dismissed the complaint.

Relying upon Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 854 , 592 P.2d 341 ], and its progeny, particularly Union of Needletrades, etc. Employees v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 996 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 838 ] (Needletrades), the court determined that respondent’s “time, place and manner” restrictions were as a matter of law reasonable on their face and constitutional, and that appellants’ failure to comply with those restrictions constituted a complete defense to appellants’ claims.

The facial reasonableness of the restrictions is not, in our view, the dispositive consideration. (Without deciding the issue, we shall for purposes of this appeal assume Wal-Mart’s “time,…