California Supreme Court: City Does Not Violate Constitution by Seeking Injunction to Enforce Ordinance Later Found Unconstitutional

In Manta Management Corporation v. City of San Bernardino, filed April 24, 2008, a unanimous California Supreme Court held that municipalities generally cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for seeking either an injunction to enforce an ordinance, or a writ of supersedeas from a court of appeal seeking to preserve an injunction during an appeal -- even if the ordinance itself is later determined to be unconstitutional. The ordinance at issue in this case was a zoning ordinance regulating adult businesses. Analogizing the case to other decisions in which defendants were sued for seeking relief from courts (such as criminal prosecutions), the court held that a judge's decision that good cause exists for the injunction or stay is a superseding cause of the harm; and thus breaks the chain of causation between the municipality's act and the plaintiff's injury. The court emphasized that it was not basing its decision on immunity principles. As with similar cases, the court ruled, the municipality can be held liable if it brought about the judge's decision by pressuring the judge to rule its way; or by making material misrepresentations to the judge. The court held that the misrepresentations do not have to be intentional to trigger the exception.