Van

Appellants Vernon Van and Mary Rose Barry brought separate actions against Target Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (sometimes collectively respondents), alleging that respondents unlawfully prevented them from gathering signatures in front of respondents’ stores that are located in commercial retail complexes. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents, ruling that individual stores did not possess the attributes of a public fomm.

We affirm. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 854 , 592 P.2d 341 ] (Pruneyard), affd. sub nom. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) 447 U.S. 74 [ 64 L.Ed.2d 741 , 100 S.Ct. 2035 ] held that the California Constitution protects expressive activity in the common areas of a large, privately owned shopping center. The Pruneyard holding does not apply to the area immediately surrounding the entrance of an individual retail store that does not itself possess the characteristics of a public fomm, even when that store is part of a larger shopping center.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Parties

Target Corporation (Target) operates hundreds of…