Summit Media, LLC v. City of Los Angeles
240 Cal. App. 4th 171
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 2006 the City of Los Angeles settled disputes with major outdoor advertisers, permitting many existing off-site billboards to be modernized (including conversion to digital displays) in violation of a 2002 municipal ban on alterations/enlargements of off-site signs.
- Summit Media sued, and this court in Summit Media I (211 Cal.App.4th 921) held the settlement illegal and ordered revocation of the digital-conversion permits issued under it.
- The trial court amended its writ (April 2013), declared specified digital permits invalid and ordered digital use discontinued; parties turned the digital signs off.
- Summit moved to require physical demolition/removal of digital equipment and structural changes made under the revoked permits; real parties sought to restore static advertising; the City allowed administrative processes (permits/significant modifications) to return signs to static use or to wrap-disabled digital faces.
- The trial court denied Summit’s demolition requests and denied attorney fees under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1021.5, finding Summit had a substantial private financial stake in the litigation; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant/City/Real Parties' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had to order demolition/removal of structural work and digital equipment installed under revoked permits | Summit: To fully effectuate the writ, the court must require removal/demolition of all alterations and digital apparatus so the illegal conversions have no continuing effect | Real parties/City: Turning displays off and/or permitting restoration to pre-conversion static use (or administrative wrapping) eliminates the illegality; demolition is unnecessary and may be impractical or unsafe | Held: No abuse of discretion in denying demolition/removal. Discontinuing digital use sufficed because the core illegality was the digital display; demolition required only if structures could not be brought into code compliance |
| Whether Summit is entitled to attorney fees under CCP §1021.5 (private attorney general) | Summit: It vindicated important public rights, conferred a public benefit, and litigation costs justify fees; there was insufficient financial incentive absent fees | Real parties/City: Summit had a large private financial stake (competitive advantage, lost revenue), so fees are inappropriate under the statute | Held: Fees denied. Although the first two §1021.5 prongs were met, the trial court reasonably concluded Summit’s financial stake was large enough that its litigation burden was not out of proportion to its individual interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 211 Cal.App.4th 921 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (prior appeal holding settlement void and directing revocation of digital permits)
- Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (Cal. 2010) (explains §1021.5 financial-burden inquiry and distinction between subjective motives and objective financial incentives)
- Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917 (Cal. 1979) (three-prong test for §1021.5 relief)
- Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 12 Cal.4th 533 (Cal. 1996) (principles on expansion vs. restriction of nonconforming uses)
- Pallco Enterprises, Inc. v. Beam, 132 Cal.App.4th 1482 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (expansion of a nonconforming use is not necessarily abandonment)
- Housing Authority v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.2d 682 (Cal. 1953) (writ proceedings may permit additional relief necessary to enforce the writ)