Charles v. City of Los Angeles
757 F. Supp. 2d 989
C.D. Cal.2010Background
- Plaintiffs seek to post temporary noncommercial signs on Fort Self Storage property but are barred by the City’s Sign Ordinance as commercial off-site signs.
- Plaintiffs allege the E! News sign is noncommercial and seeks declaratory, injunctive relief, and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The City classified Plaintiffs' proposed E! News sign as commercial and required a permit, threatening penalties for noncompliance.
- The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction; this order resolves a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)/(b)(6) and a motion for a more definite statement.
- The Sign Ordinance permits temporary noncommercial signs under certain conditions but imposes separate Hazard to Traffic and Freeway Exposure constraints affecting visibility near freeways.
- The court finds standing and ripeness for the E! News sign but dismisses remaining claims as to unidentified future signs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing viability | Charles has injury-in-fact via enforced enforcement threat. | No concrete injury since no permit denial or contract loss. | Plaintiffs have standing. |
| Redressability under Get Outdoors II | Noncommercial status would avoid permitting hurdles and signage hazards. | Even noncommercial might be barred by hazards; redressability uncertain. | Redressable due to possible relief on E! News sign even if other signs remain subject to ordinance. |
| Ripeness of E! News sign | Pre-enforcement challenge ripe because city threatened penalties and enforcement history exists. | Not ripe since no permit denial or actual signage erected. | E! News sign claims ripe; future unidentified signs not ripe and dismissed. |
| Free speech violation claim under 12(b)(6) | City impermissibly limited noncommercial speech by classifying sign as commercial. | Classification is permissible; government may distinguish commercial vs noncommercial billboard speech. | No First Amendment violation; sign properly deemed commercial. |
| Equal protection claim | City favors others; treatment is irrational/discriminatory. | Classification permitted; no irrational or selective enforcement shown. | Equal protection claim fails; no class-of-one violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) (standing elements and injury-in-fact requirements)
- Get Outdoors II, LLC v. City of San Diego, 506 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2007) (standing/redressability in sign regulation cases)
- Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City of Mesa, 997 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1993) (commercial vs noncommercial speech distinction and regulation)
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983) (three-factor test for commercial speech)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993) (narrow definition of commercial speech as a transaction-based content)
- Ass'n of Nat'l Adver. v. Lungren, 44 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 1994) (precedent on commercial vs noncommercial speech in California context)