SAN DIEGO (CN) - A federal judge dismissed civil rights claims in a lawsuit brought by two yoga instructors against the city of San Diego and its park rangers, but also allowed their First Amendment claims to proceed in a ruling issued Monday.
The dispute began in 2024, with plaintiffs Steven Hubbard and Amy Baack claiming the city violated their rights when it issued them citations for teaching yoga at popular beaches, where both instructors teach free or donation-based yoga classes.
In an 11-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo said the plaintiffs would be allowed to proceed with their claims that the city's park rangers violated their First Amendment rights when they fined one of them for teaching a live-streaming class and for lecturing in a public park.
"It's a positive development," the yoga instructors' attorney Bryan Pease, of Pease & Ijadi, told Courthouse News. "It's important for free speech and for the First Amendment to not have law enforcement issuing tickets to people for teaching yoga in a park, and this is free and donation-based yoga. The city keeps trying to frame it as commercial regulation, but the city admitted in its Ninth Circuit argument that this ordinance prohibits teaching yoga for free."
Hubbard, who was a regular at Pacific Beach, was cited multiple times by the city for teaching yoga in a public park, lecturing in a park and teaching yoga online, he said in an amended complaint. These last two acts were clearly established First Amendment rights, according to Bencivengo.
"The court finds the issuance of citations for lecturing in a park and teaching online from one's home to be obviously unconstitutional," she wrote.
According to Pease, park rangers continued to cite Hubbard for teaching yoga in a public park even though he was teaching class via YouTube livestream from his home while his students practiced at his usual spot in Pacific Beach. He said it was particularly alarming that the city sent the park rangers to his client's home.
"It calls into question the competency of the City Attorney's Office," he added. "I don't believe the rangers would have done this on their own. The rangers were either plainly incompetent or intended to violate the First Amendment."
The right to teach a class from one's own home and the right to lecture in a public park are unquestionably protected under the First Amendment, Bencivengo wrote. At this stage, the city's justification for its actions, other than enforcing its municipal code, is unclear, she continued.
However, the judge also sided with the city on the plaintiffs other claims.
The park rangers relied on city ordinances that prohibit commercial activity and services without a permit, which include yoga, and are protected under qualified immunity, the judge wrote. While the Ninth Circuit ruled the ordinance the rangers relied on is constitutionally flawed, the rangers themselves are still partially shielded, Bencivengo wrote.
The judge also ruled against the instructors on their claim the city violated their freedom of movement under the Fourteenth Amendment.
"Indeed, plaintiffs only allege that defendants' threat of a citation restricted them from teaching yoga, not from moving, traveling through, or remaining in a given place," she wrote.
The judge also dismissed the plaintiffs claims that San Diego Chief Park Ranger Mark Ruiz directed or approved the park rangers to issue citations. This was Ruiz's only involvement the plaintiffs discussed, the judge wrote. The plaintiffs did not provide any facts showing Ruiz was involved in any constitutional violations of the plaintiffs, she wrote.
Source: Courthouse News Service
