Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles
211 Cal. App. 4th 921
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Dispute among outdoor advertising firms and the City of Los Angeles over digital billboard conversions and the city’s settlement with two firms that allowed modernization despite a municipal ban on alterations.
- Settlement stemmed from prior litigation on off-site sign regulations, with the city agreeing to exempt the two firms from various ordinances and permit them to convert and add signs.
- Trial court voided the settlement as illegal for permitting alterations in violation of the code, but left existing permits in place pending case-by-case administrative review.
- City later enacted interim and permanent rules prohibiting digital displays on off-site signs, including retroactive prohibitions on permits for digital conversions.
- Plaintiff (Summit Media) sought writ of mandate to set aside the settlement and revoke permits issued under it; the trial court voided the settlement but did not revoke all permits.
- The court of appeal held the settlement void in its entirety and reversed the administrative-permit relief to require revocation of all digital conversion permits issued under the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement was ultra vires and void. | Summit argues the agreement exempted real parties from existing ordinances and violated core police powers. | Real parties contend the settlement was within city authority. | Settlement void; ultra vires. |
| Whether validation statutes bar this challenge. | Plaintiff asserts the statutes do not bar non-validating terms of the settlement. | Real parties claim the Vista validation judgment binds all related actions. | Statutes do not bar this lawsuit. |
| Whether collateral attack on a judgment applies. | Plaintiff not a party in Vista; settlement beyond validating scope. | Collateral attack principle applies to judgments within jurisdiction. | Collateral attack does not apply; settlement can be challenged. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required. | Administrative remedies futile given city’s settlement commitments. | Exhaustion required before challenging permits. | Exhaustion not required; futile given contractual binding. |
| Whether permits issued under the illegal settlement must be revoked. | Equitable estoppel cannot validate illegal permits; revocation warranted. | Administrative, case-by-case review appropriate. | Permits must be revoked; settlement voided in full. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avco Comunity Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Reg’l Comm’n, 795 P.2d 1119; 17 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1976) (government may not contract away its police power)
- Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d (Cal.App.4th 2006) (settlement contracts cannot usurp zoning actions; ultra vires)
- Toigo v. Town of Ross, 70 Cal.App.4th 309 (Cal.App.4th 1998) (estoppel in land use cases limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal.3d 462 (Cal. 1970) (government cannot be estopped to deny enforcing ordinances in land use)
- Horwitz v. City of Los Angeles, 124 Cal.App.4th 1344 (Cal.App.4th 2004) (city cannot issue permits in absence of compliance with ordinances)
- Morrison Homes Corp. v. City of Pleasanton, 58 Cal.App.3d 724 (Cal.App.3d 1976) (contracts cannot negate lawful zoning actions)
- Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Bd. of Supervisors, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 740 (Cal.App.4th 2000) (development agreements must comply with general plan and ordinances)