California Legal Brief

The Rule of Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association v. Leopoldo Valdivia is that a public entity's adoption and recording of CC&Rs containing a prohibition on abortion clinics violates the California Constitution and is unenforceable as against fundamental public policy, under circumstances where the public entity's creation of the prohibition constitutes government action that interferes with the fundamental right of procreative choice without a compelling justification.

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 authorized by CC&Rs to seek injunctive relief for violations.

Defendants Respondents were Leopoldo Valdivia, M.D., Jennifer Valdivia, and Family Planning Associates Medical Group, Inc. — the property owners who leased to a family planning clinic that provides abortion services.

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

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were: In 1991, the Tulare Local Hospital District (a public entity) adopted and recorded CC&Rs for the Tulare Medical Center development containing a prohibition on "abortion clinic" use. In 2024, the Valdivias leased property subject to these CC&Rs to Family Planning Associates Medical Group, which provides abortion services. The Association sought to enforce the prohibition.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied the preliminary injunction, ruling that the Association failed to show likelihood of prevailing because it was an open question whether restrictions on abortion clinics in CC&Rs run afoul of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether a public entity's adoption of CC&Rs prohibiting abortion clinics constitutes government action that violates the California Constitution's right of reproductive choice 2. Whether Civil Code section 53 renders such prohibition void as discriminating based on characteristics protected by the Unruh Act

The Appellate Court held that when a public entity adopts and records CC&Rs containing abortion clinic prohibitions, this constitutes government action that violates the fundamental right of procreative choice under the California Constitution without compelling justification, and also violates Civil Code section 53 by indirectly limiting property use based on protected characteristics under the Unruh Act.

The case is inapplicable when CC&Rs are adopted by purely private entities without government involvement, or when compelling governmental interests can be demonstrated to justify restrictions on reproductive choice.

The case leaves open whether privately-adopted CC&Rs with abortion clinic prohibitions would violate the constitutional right of reproductive choice, the full scope of state action analysis in enforcing privately-adopted discriminatory CC&Rs, and whether abortion-related discrimination claims require proof of all traditional Unruh Act elements including harm.