Verdicts / Settlements - Defendants

Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of West Hollywood

FACTS

The City of West Hollywood obtained a judgment after the state court sustained the City's demurrer to an amended complaint, without leave to amend. Regency Outdoor Advertising had sued the City after the City amended its zoning ordinance regarding new billboard construction. The City's zoning ordinance Historically had restricted the construction of new billboards to replacement of pre-existing ones or for an approved redevelopment project. The amendment now also allows new billboards on the City property provided the billboard is "subordinate and accessory to a City project…[and is] in the public interest". By reason of the amended zoning law, new billboards are allowed at two parking lots the City had acquired, one on Sunset Boulevard and the other on Santa Monica Boulevard, to relieve the terrible traffic and parking congestion in the City. The City determined that the new billboards at those locations would be consistent with its General Plan and the billboard revenue would help pay for the parking lot acquisition and operation. After issuing a request for proposals to which Regency refused to respond, the City approved a contract proposal by another billboard company, Van Wagner, to build and manage a billboard on the Sunset Boulevard location. In September 2004, Regency filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate, for damages, declaratory relief and an injunction, to enjoin the implementation of the new billboard rules. Regency alleged the new zoning ordinance violated its First Amendment free speech rights, denied it due process and equal protection of the law, and created an unlawful conflict of interest whereby the City became a competitor in the billboard business. Regency also pleaded monetary damages as taxpayer representative. Van Wagner became a real party in interest in the case. In October 2004, the State Court judge (Honorable Lisa H. Cole) entered an order denying Regency's application for a temporary restraining order. The court reasoned that a TRO to stop the planned billboard would impose a prior restraint on the free speech rights of Van Wagner and the City, whereas Regency had for many years profited from its numerous billboards in the City under the protection of the City's restrictive billboard rules. In January 2005, Regency filed a parallel action in the United States District Courts before the Hon.Gary A. Feess. That court granted the City's motion to abstain, and stayed further proceedings pending the outcome of the State Court case. In May 2005, the state Court (Hon Joe Hilberman) entered the judgment for the City and City Council, and also for Van Wagner, after the Court sustained their demurrers without leave to amend. The Court held that the substantive constitutional analysis indicated the amended zoning ordinance was valid; Regency lacked standing to make an "as applied" challenge against the new law; on the "facial challenge", Regency was deemed to be not within a "suspect class" and under a rational relationship standard of review, the statutory classification was found to be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest and no in violation of Regency's equal protection rights.

Plaintiff Contention:

In facts, above

Defendant Contention:

In facts, above