James Young, John Slevin, Eileen Ray, Richard Green, Joe Bigornia, and Charles Michael Noble (plaintiffs) are individuals who solicit and gather signatures on initiative petitions to place measures on election ballots.  On three occasions, plaintiffs solicited signatures outside the entrance to a supermarket owned and operated by Raley’s, Inc. (Raley’s).  On each occasion, plaintiffs refused to comply with the permit application procedure that Raley’s required for such solicitations on its premises.  After they were placed under citizen’s arrest for trespass, plaintiffs sued Raley’s for false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of their rights of free speech and to petition the government under article I, sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution. 

     After the trial court ruled in favor of Raley’s, plaintiffs appealed.[1]  They contend:  (1) the trial court erred in determining that the Raley’s supermarket in question is not a public forum and therefore Raley’s did not violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by excluding them from engaging in petitioning activities on its premises without complying with its permit procedure; (2) the court erred in determining that, even if the supermarket is a public forum, its permit application procedure and regulations governing solicitations on its premises are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions; and (3) the court erred in finding that Raley’s was not liable on plaintiffs’ false arrest cause of action.  We shall affirm the judgment. 

 Lourdes M. Inclan and Juan C. Inclan sued Covenant Care California, Inc. (and Covenant Care, Inc.) for damages arising from the allegedly negligent care, treatment, and death of their father, Juan A. Inclan, at a hospice facility owned and operated by Covenant Care.[1]  More than two years later, the Inclans sought leave to file an amended pleading in which they alleged willful misconduct, elder abuse, and other intentional torts, and in which they asked for punitive damages.  Covenant Care objected, contending (among other things) that the claim for punitive damages was time barred.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.13 [in an action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, the court shall not allow an amendment that includes a claim for punitive damages if the motion for such an order is not filed within two years after the complaint is filed].)[2]  The trial court rejected Covenant Care's argument and accepted the Inclans' assertion that section 425.13 does not apply to the Elder Abuse Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600).[3]  Covenant Care then filed a petition for a writ of mandate, and we issued an order to show cause.