Lunada Bay: The wave that created the controversy. Photo: Levin
Two surfers and the City of Palos Verdes Estates, California are the last defendants holding out in the eight-year-and-counting legal battle surrounding the localism, violence, and harassment that has taken place at the Los Angeles County surf spot, Lunada Bay. As 12 of the defendants named in the lawsuit – those who belong to the group known as the “Bay Boys” – have reached settlements with the prosecution, two surfers, David Melo and Alan Johnston, will continue their legal defense when trial resumes on August 5.
If found guilty of violating the California Coastal Act, the two surfers could, in theory, face maximum penalties of up to tens of millions of dollars.
“If you harass somebody with the intent to impede their access to the water, that’s a Coastal Act violation,” Kurt Franklin, one of the prosecution’s lawyers, highlighted to The Inertia. The penalty for said violation is between $1,000 and $15,000 per day, so when you add up every day that such activity has been going on since the three-year statute of limitation from the start of the trial in 2016 until present (apparently some of these guys are still at it), that’s thousands of days of violations that add up to a small fortune.
But bankrupting the defendants was not, and is not, the prosecution’s intent. Twelve defendants have already reached settlements, choosing between the options to pay penalties (ranging from $30,000 and $90,000) or committing to staying away from Lunada Bay for one year, which has already been completed by five of those who settled. Some of the defendants, Franklin says, have even shown remorse and apologized directly to him.
The famous fort at Lunada Bay erected by the Bay Boys. Photo: Spencer v. Lunada Lawsuit Exhibit
The other key party in the trial is the City of Palos Verdes Estates. According to Franklin, all the prosecution was asking from the City in a settlement was to simply make the beach appear public – adding signage that states it’s a public beach, installing a park bench, placing water bowls for dogs, etc. Instead, the city chose to fight the case and given that they filed a motion to get rid of a claim, they waived the possibility of their insurance to cover potential penalties and would have to pay out of pocket.
“We lay blame at the City and its failures to both take the Coastal Act and ‘Bay Boy’ problem seriously,” said Franklin. “The goal is to give this beach back to the people of California. Lunada Bay and other City of Palos Verdes Estates beaches are not something for locals and the City to ‘protect’ from outsiders as has happened with the long history of extreme localism.”
The lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2016 by former L.A. police officer Cory Spencer and model/filmmaker Diana Milena Smoluchowska-Miernik, has gone through a whirlwind of legal proceedings, bouncing around federal, state, and appellate courts over the course of eight years. The suit stemmed from an organized system of verbal and physical threats and violence that local surfers – the Bay Boys – used to keep people out of their surf spot. (The Inertia’s Chase Scheinbaum went to see for himself back in 2016.) The most recent update was a California appeals court that reversed a previous court ruling regarding interpretation of the Coastal Act, which creates important precedent for the prosecution when the next phase of the suit goes to trial in August.
One of the main points of debate surrounding the interpretation of the Coastal Act has revolved around the definition of a “development.” The physical developments – a rock fort built by the Bay Boys, which included a barbecue pit and storage for kayaks, as well as a stairway built to the beach by a neighbor – were all done without permits and, according to the appellate court, are the responsibility of the City. Then there is also the non-physical development, which Franklin explained is a complicated legal concept that essentially means that bullying and harassing people to create a private beach would also require a permit, which obviously none of the defendants possessed, therefore violating the Coastal Act. This interpretation of “development” was clearly defined by the latest decision in the appellate court, which greatly complicates the defense’s attempt to wriggle free.
After the latest ruling, Franklin is confident in the prosecution’s chances in the upcoming trial. In fact, they have filed a motion for “summary adjudication” to strike down the City’s defenses because they don’t believe there are any defenses. Regardless, Franklin imagines that the defense will appeal again, a process that could add another year or two to the saga unless a settlement is reached.
Franklin, a surfer himself who took on the trial pro bono because he thought the Bay Boys actions “were wrong,” says even throughout all these twists and turns of the suit, at least one of the defendants holding out has been witnessed continuing the aggressive localism tactics at Lunada Bay.
While we may not have an immediate resolution, this lawsuit will create an interesting case study of how the law can affect a surf spot. If the prosecution is successful, the precedent could possibly expedite similar cases in the future to wield the Coastal Act as a tool to curb violence and aggressive localism at California surf breaks.
