City of Corona v. AMG Outdoor Advertising CA4/2
244 Cal. App. 4th 291
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2004 the City of Corona adopted an ordinance banning all new off-site (billboard) signs, but allowing preexisting "grandfathered" billboards to be relocated within the City by negotiated "relocation agreements."
- AMG Outdoor Advertising erected a new two-face off-site billboard in Corona in December 2014 without City or Caltrans permits; AMG could not show the board was traceable to a pre-2004 grandfathered display.
- The City issued cease-and-desist letters and then sued, obtaining a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction requiring removal of AMG’s billboard and enjoining further unpermitted billboards.
- AMG challenged the injunction and ordinance, arguing (1) discriminatory enforcement because the City allowed Lamar to erect/relocate billboards after 2004, (2) equal protection violation, (3) the ordinance and injunction are unconstitutional prior restraints on speech, and (4) the ordinance is facially invalid under the California Constitution.
- The trial court found Lamar’s existing/recent signs were traceable to pre-2004 grandfathered displays and that the City had not allowed any new off-site billboards except under relocation agreements; the Court of Appeal affirmed the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (AMG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City discriminated by allowing Lamar to erect post-2004 billboards | City: Lamar’s signs are traceable to pre-2004 grandfathered signs and were relocated only under relocation agreements | AMG: City permitted Lamar to erect new billboards after the ban while denying AMG, evidencing unlawful discrimination | Court: No discrimination; substantial uncontradicted evidence shows Lamar’s signs are grandfathered or traceable and relocations were via agreements |
| Whether the ordinance/relocation scheme violates equal protection | City: Grandfathering furthers legitimate interests (aesthetics, safety); AMG is not similarly situated because it owns no pre-2004 signs | AMG: Ban favors existing operators and discriminates against new entrants | Court: No violation; grandfathering upheld (Maldonado) and AMG not similarly situated |
| Whether ordinance/injunction are prior restraints on speech | City: Ordinance is content-neutral land-use regulation; relocation procedure authorized by statute; injunction enforces ordinance | AMG: Ban and injunction are prior restraints and vest unbridled discretion in City | Court: Not a prior restraint; ordinance is legislative land-use regulation, content-neutral, and does not vest unbridled discretion |
| Whether the ordinance is facially invalid under CA Constitution | City: Ordinance regulates commercial billboards under Central Hudson/Metromedia principles and is content-neutral | AMG: California Constitution affords broader free-speech protection and renders the ban invalid | Court: Ordinance valid; Metromedia/Central Hudson framework applies (and Gerawan decisions do not change outcome); no facial invalidity |
Key Cases Cited
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (plurality) (upholding ban on off-site commercial billboards under Central Hudson)
- Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (commercial-speech four-part test)
- Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 24 Cal.4th 468 (California free-speech analysis and statement that state clause can be broader)
- Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Kawamura, 33 Cal.4th 1 (applying Central Hudson under state constitution on remand)
- Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 211 Cal.App.4th 921 (settlement agreements that circumvent ordinance can be ultra vires)
- Valley Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Riverside, 446 F.3d 948 (invalidated municipal grant of unbridled discretion over billboard approvals)
- Maldonado v. Morales, 556 F.3d 1037 (grandfathering of preexisting billboards does not violate equal protection)
- World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 606 F.3d 676 (land-use regulation by legislature does not implicate First Amendment unbridled-discretion concerns)
- IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, 35 Cal.3d 63 (when government seeks injunction enforcing ordinance, public interest presumption may favor injunction)