Geft Outdoors, LLC v. City of Westfield, 922 F.3d 357

Background

GEFT, a sign company, began erecting a digital billboard in Westfield, IN on leased property without obtaining the City's sign permit; it obtained a state permit but not a city permit.
Westfield's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires sign permits, bans off‑premises signs and pole signs, and authorizes stop‑work notices and injunctions to abate nuisances.
Westfield posted multiple Stop Work Notices and letters asserting UDO violations; GEFT nonetheless continued installation.
On December 16, 2017, a private firm attorney representing Westfield (Zaiger) threatened to have GEFT personnel arrested if work continued; contractors stopped work and ultimately halted installation.
GEFT sued, alleging First Amendment defects in the Sign Standards, Indiana home‑rule violations, and (later) due process and abuse of process claims; GEFT sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement and to stop arrest threats. Westfield sought a restraining order enjoining further work. The district court denied GEFT’s motion and granted Westfield’s; GEFT appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process from stop‑work enforcement and arrest threats	GEFT: Stop Work Notices were deficient under UDO and arrests were threatened, depriving GEFT of property without process	Westfield: Notices provided notice and appeal routes; arrest threats were unauthorized, random acts subject to post‑deprivation remedies	Court: No likelihood of success — notices satisfied constitutional process and arrest threats were random/unauthorized with state remedies available; procedural due process claim fails
Substantive due process based on coercive arrest threat	GEFT: Zaiger’s threat coerced CEFT from using its property; conduct "shocks the conscience"	Westfield: Although inappropriate, threats did not reach conscience‑shocking level; no §1983 municipal liability shown	Court: No likelihood of success — threats not conscience‑shocking; municipality not shown liable as Zaiger was not established as final policymaker
Equitable relief / unclean hands (can GEFT ignore the UDO while litigation pending?)	GEFT: Sign Standards are content‑based and presumptively invalid; thus GEFT was entitled to act without complying	Westfield: Ordinance remains presumptively valid until a court declares it void; GEFT cannot unilaterally defy it	Held: District court did not abuse discretion; GEFT must await judicial ruling and its conduct undermines equitable relief
Westfield’s restraining order to halt construction pending merits	GEFT: sought to continue construction; objected to being enjoined	Westfield: Needed to preserve status quo and prevent ongoing violations while case proceeds	Held: Proper to enjoin further work pending resolution; aligns with denial of GEFT’s injunction and purpose of preliminary relief

Key Cases Cited

Christian Legal Soc'y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for preliminary injunctions)
Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Comm'r of Ind. State Dep't of Health, 896 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2018) (preliminary injunction threshold and sliding scale approach)
Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of Am., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2008) (must deny injunction if plaintiff fails threshold showing)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (presumption against content‑based restrictions applies when court addresses First Amendment challenge)
River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 23 F.3d 164 (7th Cir. 1994) (leasehold as protected property interest for due process)
Leavell v. Ill. Dep't of Nat. Res., 600 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2010) (random/unauthorized conduct doctrine and post‑deprivation remedy sufficiency)
Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942 (2018) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve relative positions pending merits)
Lewis v. County of Sacramento, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (substantive due process limited to conscience‑shocking conduct)