Lone Star Sec. & Video, Inc. v. City of L. A.

989 F.Supp.2d 981

LONE STAR SECURITY & VIDEO, INC., Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES; City of Santa Clarita; City of Rancho Cucamonga; City of Loma Linda, Defendants.

Case No. 2:11–cv–2113–ODW(FMOx).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Dec. 20, 2013.

George M. Wallace, Jr., Wallace Brown and Schwartz, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff.

Kimberly Anne Erickson, Laurie Rittenberg, Los Angeles City Attorneys Office, Brian A. Pierik, Joseph P. Buchman, Burke Williams and Sorensen LLP, Melinda M. Carrido, Haight Brown and Bonesteel, Los Angeles, CA, Kevin M. Osterberg, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Riverside, CA, Richard Holdaway, Robbins & Holdaway, Chino, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF LONE STAR SECURITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [78] AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [82]

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The present Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment ask this Court to determine the constitutionality of four city ordinances that prohibit the parking of “mobile billboard advertising displays” on city streets. The four ordinances are virtually identical and mirror the language of the state legislative act granting municipalities across California the authority to pass these ordinances. Plaintiff Lone Star Security and Video, Inc. (“Lone Star”) is pursuing only a facial challenge to the ordinances, arguing that they should be struck down for violating the First Amendment. The parties have stipulated to the facts in this case, so only questions of law remain.¹ ( See Stipulated Facts (“Stip.”), ECF No. 80.) Having considered all arguments in support of and in opposition to the present Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court finds that the ordinances at issue are constitutional as content-neutral reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Lone Star's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 78) and GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 82).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 25, 2010, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2756, which took effect on January 1, 2011. (Stip. ¶ 1.) AB 2756 amended portions of the California Vehicle Code to explicitly authorize cities and counties to regulate “mobile billboard advertising displays.” (Stip. Ex. 1.) A “mobile billboard advertising display” is defined as “an advertising display that is attached to a wheeled, mobile, nonmotorized vehicle, that carries, pulls, or transports a sign or billboard, and is for the primary purpose of advertising.” ( Id.) In enacting AB 2756, the California Legislature stated that communities across the state were “experiencing a surge in mobile billboards” and that vehicles and trailers carrying mobile billboards were being parked on city streets for long periods of time, sometimes for several days. ( Id.) In addition, the California Legislature included the following findings:

Not only are mobile billboards a visual blight, but they pose a significant safety hazard when motorists are forced to veer around them into the next lane of traffic. Mobile billboards also reduce available on-street parking and impair the visibility of pedestrians and drivers.

( Id.) Defendants in this case—the Cities of Los Angeles, Santa Clarita, Rancho Cucamonga, and Loma Linda (“Cities”)—all passed ordinances in direct response to AB 2756.

The Los Angeles City Council passed Ordinance No. 181495 on December 17, 2010. (Stip. ¶ 3.) The ordinance created new Los Angeles Municipal Code section 87.53. ( Id.) Section 87.53 incorporates by reference the California Legislature's amendments to the Vehicle Code under AB 2756. The ordinance makes it “unlawful for any person to park a mobile billboard advertising display, as defined under Section 395.5 of the California Vehicle Code, on any public street or public lands in the City of Los Angeles.” (Stip. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) Penalties for parking mobile billboard advertising on city streets mirror those authorized by the California Legislature. (Stip. Exs. 1–2.)

On April 12, 2011, the City of Santa Clarita adopted Ordinance No. 11–7, creating new section 12.84 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. (Stip. ¶ 5.) The ordinance states, “It shall be unlawful for any person to park a Mobile Billboard Advertising Display on any public street or public lands in the City of Santa Clarita.” (Stip. ¶ 6, Ex. 3.) Like the City of Los Angeles, Santa Clarita's ordinance incorporates by reference the California Legislature's amendments to the Vehicle Code including penalties and the definition of “mobile billboard advertising display.” ( Id.)

The City of Rancho Cucamonga passed Ordinance No. 839 on April 6, 2011. (Stip. ¶ 7.) The ordinance created new section 10.52.080 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, making it “unlawful for any person to park, stand, or otherwise allow to remain upon any City street, any mobile billboard advertising display.” (Stip. ¶ 8, Ex. 4.) Once again, the city incorporated by reference the California Legislature's authorized penalties and definition of a “mobile billboard advertising display.” ( Id.)

On May 10, 2011, the City of Loma Linda adopted Ordinance No. 704, which created new section 10.36.070 of the Loma Linda Municipal Code. (Stip. ¶ 9.) Loma Linda's ordinance states, “It is unlawful for any person to park, stand, or otherwise allow to remain upon any City street, any mobile billboard advertising display.” (Stip. ¶ 10, Ex. 5.) As with the other three city ordinances, the amendments to the California Vehicle Code are explicitly referenced including penalties and definitions. ( Id.)

Lone Star filed suit on March 11, 2011, challenging the City of Los Angeles ordinance on both federal and California constitutional grounds. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint was amended on June 6, 2011, to add the Cities of Santa Clarita, Rancho Cucamonga, and Loma Linda as defendants. (ECF No. 17.) Lone Star is a corporation that operates a fleet of mobile billboards, and has been subject to enforcement under the ordinances at issue. ( Id. at ¶¶ 2, 7–8.) The Amended Complaintasserts claims for free speech, due process, and privileges or immunities clause violations under both the United States and California Constitutions. ( Id.)

This Court denied Lone Star's Motion for Preliminary Injunction on June 2, 2012, finding that Lone Star had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. (ECF No. 53.) In denying the preliminary injunction, the Court held that the ordinances are not content-based restrictions on speech. ( Id.) The Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court's denial of the preliminary injunction on March 21, 2013, holding that the ordinances are in fact content-neutral. (ECF No. 70.) The parties have now filed Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment to determine whether the ordinances are constitutional as reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. (ECF Nos. 78, 82.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment should be granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify specific facts through admissible evidence that show a genuine issue for trial. Id.;Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Conclusory or speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact. Thornhill's Publ'g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir.1979).

A genuine issue of material fact must be more than a scintilla of evidence or evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative. Addisu v. Fred Meyer, 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir.2000). A disputed fact is “material” where the resolution of that fact might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. Where the moving and nonmoving parties' versions of events differ, courts are required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).

IV. DISCUSSION

The parties have stipulated to the facts in this case, namely the enactment of the relevant ordinances and their admissibility. (Stip. ¶¶ 1–10.) In addition, the parties have stipulated that Lone Star is pursuing only a facial challenge to the ordinances. (Stip. ¶ 11.) While the Amended Complaint contains claims for violations under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as under the California Constitution, disposition of this case and the instant Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment turn entirely on the application of well-established First Amendment law. Lone Star concedes this point. (Lone Star Opp'n 2:6–11.) Accordingly, the Court will first address the validity of the ordinances under the First Amendment and then address any remaining claims.

A. Facial Challenges Under the First Amendment

“When the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of it.” United States v. Playboy Entm't Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000). Nonetheless, a typical facial challenge to a law's validity requires “that no set of circumstances exists under which [the law] would be valid,” or that the law “lacks any ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’ ” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 472, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010); see also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 740 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d...