RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY v. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY v. UNITED FOOD<br /> AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS </b><b >UNION</b><b<br /> > LOCAL</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/19/10<br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PUBLICATION</u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(Sacramento)<br /> <br/>----<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=394 valign=top ><br /> <br/>RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL<br /> WORKERS UNION LOCAL 8,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=230 valign=top ><br /> <br/>C060413<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. No.<br /> <br/>34-2008-00008682-CU-OR-GDS)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part I…..</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>We next turn to the constitutional jurisprudence of the United<br /> States Supreme Court and the two cases,<i ><br /> Mosley</i> and <i >Carey</i>,<br /> that are most relevant to whether the Moscone<br /> Act violates the United States Constitution.<br /> <br/> In <i<br /> >Mosley</i>, a 1972 case, the United States<br /> Supreme Court considered a Chicago<br /> ordinance that generally prohibited picketing within 150 feet of a school, but<br /> made a specific exception for picketing in a labor dispute. The plaintiff was a man who frequently<br /> picketed, always peacefully, outside a high school, carrying a sign that stated<br /> that the high school discriminated racially. <br /> He sued for injunctive and declaratory relief because he was told that,<br /> if he picketed after the effective date of the ordinance, he would be<br /> arrested. (<i<br /> >Mosley, supra,</i> 408 U.S. at pp. 92-93.) The court held that the ordinance violated<br /> the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment<br /> because of the ordinance's â€