to residents of a Penn State dormitory, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to prevail on that claim. The Landlord and Tenant Act prohibits any provision in a lease that limits a tenant's right to have social guests in his premises or to purchase goods from a source of the tenant's choosing. Nothing in the complaint indicates that Penn State prohibits either Plaintiff from inviting an AFS representative to his room to make a sale or prohibits from having a social guest in his dorm room. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a probability that they will succeed in their argument that they are entitled under Pennsylvania law to be able to consummate sales to others or to conduct group commercial demonstrations in their rooms. The Landlord and Tenant Act does not specifically so provide and it is not a reasonable construction of the Act to read it to prohibit Penn State from limiting commercial transactions in its dormitory rooms to sales of goods to the occupants of the rooms.
Plaintiffs Del Valle, Varsics, Habacher, and Spiller do not reside in the residence halls at Penn State but seek to participate in the commercial activities sought to be conducted by the other plaintiffs. In American Future Systems I the Court of Appeals recognized that the First Amendment rights of the recipients of commercial speech are co-extensive with those of the makers of the speech. American Future Systems v. Pennsylvania State University, 618 F.2d at 257 n.16. Based on that case, the Court concludes that the non-resident plaintiffs have failed to show a probability that they will succeed on their claims that they must be permitted to enter residence halls to attend group demonstrations in the students' rooms and to consummate sales in those rooms.
The restriction on these Plaintiffs' ability to engage in commercial activity is even less than that placed on Plaintiffs Brubaker and Wingert. The non-resident plaintiffs are able to participate in an AFS demonstration in a common area in a residence hall but not in a dormitory room. The Court fails to see how this is a significant abridgment of any right of speech or association. Moreover, they may consummate a purchase of AFS goods anywhere except in a residence hall. It is not alleged that the university prohibits them from inviting an AFS representative to their own dwellings for demonstrations and sales. These Plaintiffs, therefore, are unlikely to convince the Court that these inconsequential restrictions violate their rights. See Reid v. Barrett, 467 F. Supp. 124, 128 (D.N.J.1979), aff'd, 615 F.2d 1354 (3d Cir. 1980) (Mem.).
Not only have all the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficient probability of success on the merits of their litigation to justify the preliminary relief they seek, they have also failed to show that they will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary relief they seek is denied. As indicated above, the restrictions placed on the Plaintiffs with respect to their ability to engage in the commercial transactions involved in this litigation are not substantial. AFS is permitted to conduct both group demonstrations and sales in the residence halls although the demonstrations are limited to common areas and the sales limited to sales to a resident in the resident's own room. Plaintiffs Brubaker and Wingert are free to conduct group demonstrations in common areas and may consummate sales to residents in the purchasers' rooms. Of course, both these classes of Plaintiffs are free to conduct whatever activities they wish at locations other than the residence halls. The non-resident plaintiffs are also free to attend demonstrations in the residence halls and may consummate sales at any other location. In short, the only restriction placed on any of these Plaintiffs is the precise location at which they are permitted to engage in certain commercial activities. The Court fails to see how regulations that merely control the location of an activity constitute irreparable harm since the Plaintiffs are free to conduct the activities they wish at other locations in close proximity to the residence halls.
Weighed against this lack of irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs is the very real possibility of harm to Penn State and other residents of the halls. If the Court were to grant the preliminary relief requested by the Plaintiffs, there is a real possibility that the abuses that this Court found to have existed prior to the implementation of the regulations would resume. See American Future Systems, Inc. v. The Pennsylvania State University, 464 F. Supp. at 1256-58.
The final factor to be considered is the public interest, if any, involved in this case. The Court finds itself in agreement with the Defendants that there is no significant public interest involved in this case. What is primarily involved is the Plaintiffs' desires to engage in commercial activities for their pecuniary benefit. There is totally lacking the identifiable concrete public interest that must be present in order for that interest to be considered by the Court in ruling on Plaintiffs' request for preliminary relief. See Continental Group v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 358 (3d Cir. 1980). What public interest is involved, namely the interests of other residents of the residence halls, weighs strongly against granting the Plaintiffs the preliminary relief they seek.
After a careful review of the allegations in the complaint and construing those allegations in a light most favorably to the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that they are not entitled to the preliminary injunctive relief they seek. The Court is justified in making this determination without a hearing because it has accepted as true the factual allegations put forth by the Plaintiffs. If on that basis the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction, the Court sees no reason to delay its disposition of the request.
Since the Court will deny the request for preliminary relief, there is no reason for this case to remain on the May 1981 trial list or for the settlement conference scheduled for April 3, 1981 to be held. It is the Court's view that an expedited hearing on the request for a permanent injunction is not appropriate. The case, therefore, will be placed on the September 1981 trial list.
Appropriate orders will be entered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.