California Legal Brief

The Rule of Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association is that CC&Rs adopted by public entities prohibiting abortion clinics are unenforceable as violations of fundamental public policy and Civil Code section 531, under circumstances where a public entity creates land use restrictions that interfere with constitutional reproductive rights without demonstrating a compelling governmental interest.

Appeal from judgment after denial of preliminary injunction in Superior Court, Tulare County.

Plaintiff Appellant was Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association — the unincorporated association seeking to enforce CC&Rs prohibiting abortion clinics in a medical center development.

Defendants Respondents were Leopoldo Valdivia, M.D., Jennifer Valdivia, and Family Planning Associates Medical Group, Inc. — the property owners and tenant seeking to operate a family planning clinic providing abortion services.

The suit sounded in enforcement of CC&Rs land use restrictions. Cross-claims included declaratory relief, intentional interference with contractual and prospective economic relations, and injunctive relief.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that in 1991, the Tulare Local Hospital District (a public entity) adopted and recorded CC&Rs for the Tulare Medical Center prohibiting various uses including "abortion clinic." In 2024, property owners leased to Family Planning Associates, which provides abortion services, prompting the Association to seek enforcement of the prohibition.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied the preliminary injunction request, ruling that the Association had not shown likelihood of prevailing on the merits due to open questions about whether the CC&Rs' abortion clinic restriction violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and potential constitutional issues.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1) Whether CC&Rs adopted by a public entity that prohibit abortion clinics violate fundamental public policy under the California Constitution's reproductive freedom provisions; 2) Whether such restrictions are void under Civil Code section 531 as discriminatory under the Unruh Act.

The Appellate Court held that CC&Rs adopted by public entities prohibiting abortion clinics are unenforceable because: (1) the public entity's adoption constitutes government action that interferes with fundamental reproductive rights under the compelling interest standard, which was not met; and (2) Civil Code section 531 renders such prohibitions void as restrictions based on characteristics protected by the Unruh Act, specifically the decision to have an abortion as fundamental to personal identity and beliefs.

The case is inapplicable when CC&Rs are adopted by purely private entities without government involvement, when compelling governmental interests can be demonstrated to justify reproductive freedom restrictions, or when land use restrictions do not implicate characteristics protected under the Unruh Act.

The case leaves open whether reproductive freedom rights under California Constitution section 1.1 protect against purely private action, the specific standard for evaluating private entity restrictions on reproductive services, and the full scope of what constitutes protected characteristics under the expanded Unruh Act analysis.