Lone Star Security, et al v. Los Angeles City of
Filing
148
MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: This case was transferred back to the Court on 4/27/2010 after a trial in front of Judge William D. Keller and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the action in its entirety. The Court finds that no issues remain to be resolved. Defendant shall file a [Proposed] Judgment by not later than 6/11/2012. (jp)
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 03-05346 AHM (RCx)
Title
LONE STAR SECURITY & VIDEO, INC. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Present: The
Honorable
Date
May 31, 2012
A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephen Montes
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:
Tape No.
Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:
IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)
This case was transferred back to the Court on April 27, 2010 after a trial in front
of Judge William D. Keller and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court DISMISSES the action in its entirety.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The parties are familiar with the factual circumstances of this action, which
resulted from the practice of the City of Los Angeles (“Defendant” or “City”) of towing
trailers owned by plaintiff Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) that functioned
as advertising billboards. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on two of its claims:
(1) that Defendant’s actions violated its due process rights because Defendant did not
provide adequate notice before towing its vehicles; and (2) the municipal code section
relied upon by Defendant was preempted by the California Vehicle Code. The Court
granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the invalid-ordinance claim and
denied summary judgment on the notice-related claim.
The parties were unable to settle and the case proceeded to trial. On July 16, 2007,
Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to the form and content of a final Pretrial Conference
Order (“Order”). Paragraph 7 of that Order states, “The sole issue remaining to be tried
is the amount of damages to be awarded to plaintiffs.” Exhibit A to Defendant’s Reply at
8. Paragraph 14 states that the Order “shall supersede the pleadings and govern the
course of the trial of this cause, unless modified to prevent manifest injustice.” Exhibit A
to Opp. at 9. At the final pretrial conference, the Court had the following colloquy with
counsel for Plaintiff:
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 6
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 03-05346 AHM (RCx)
Date
May 31, 2012
Title
LONE STAR SECURITY & VIDEO, INC. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
The Court: Let’s go back. . . . How are you going to prove your
case on damages?
Mr. Wallace: Your honor, my understanding is that the sole issue
is damages. The damages –
The Court: Of course it is.
Mr. Wallace: The sole issue is the damages, and the damages are
those that we can trace to these 77 trailers that have been
identified in the Pre-trial Conference Order.
Exhibit C to Defendant’s Reply at 7:20-8:3.
The Court subsequently transferred the action to Judge Keller for a trial on
damages alone. Docket No. 85. After trial, Judge Keller entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiff in the amount of $43,110.00, plus costs to include reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Docket No. 110. After entry of judgment, both parties appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Defendant appealed the Court’s pretrial grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff
on the invalid ordinance issue and Plaintiff appealed the Court’s denial of summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s notice-related claim. Docket No. 113. The Ninth Circuit held
that the Court properly rejected Plaintiff’s notice-related claim, but reversed the Court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the invalid ordinance issue and
directed that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant on that claim.
On February 4, 2010, after the case was remanded to district court, Judge Keller
ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the action should not be closed and what
claims, if any, remained. Docket No. 140. Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s response
to the order to show cause. Docket No. 143. The matter was transferred back to this
Court on April 27, 2010, before any action was taken on the parties’ responses to Judge
Keller’s order to show cause. Since that time, the parties have done nothing to prosecute
this action.
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
CV-90 (06/04)
Plaintiff’s Position
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 6
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 03-05346 AHM (RCx)
Date
May 31, 2012
Title
LONE STAR SECURITY & VIDEO, INC. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
The gist of Plaintiff’s response to Judge Keller’s order is that its complaint raised
several claims that remain outstanding because they were not dealt with in its motion for
summary judgment or addressed at trial. According to Plaintiff, its complaint raised “five
principal objections to the City’s actions”:
(1) the “invalid ordinance” issue – Plaintiff admits this issue has been fully
resolved;
(2) the pre-impound notice / “chronic offender” issue – both the Court and the
Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiff’s claim that the protection of due process required
Defendant to provide Plaintiff with reasonable notice before impounding its trailers.
Plaintiff contends, however, that the Ninth Circuit premised its holding on Plaintiff’s
supposed “unique status as a commercial, chronic offender” of the ordinance. Plaintiff
now argues that whether it is or is not a “chronic offender” is an issue of fact that has
never been litigated or decided in this action;
(3) the non-violation issue – Plaintiff contended that in most instances its trailers
had not been located in one place for more than 72 hours. Therefore, they did not violate
the ordinance and were not subject to impound. According to Plaintiff “[b]ecause of the
manner in which the case was previously concluded in this Court, that factual contention .
. . has never been tried or resolved. The grant of partial summary judgment on the
‘invalid ordinance’ theory rendered the question of [non-violation] irrelevant” (Plaintiff’s
Reply at 9);
(4) the post-impound hearing issue – Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s postimpound hearing policies and procedures do not satisfy due process requirements.
Plaintiff claims it did not raise this issue in its summary judgment motion due to
questions of fact regarding Defendant’s policies and procedures. After the Court granted
summary judgment on the invalid ordinance theory, there was no reason to address the
post-impound issue. Now that judgment on the invalid ordinance theory has been
reversed, the issue of post-impound due process remains to be presented and resolved on
its merits.
(5) the First Amendment issue – Plaintiff contended that the City’s impound of its
sign trailers impaired Lone Star’s First Amendment speech rights. Plaintiff alleges that
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 6
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 03-05346 AHM (RCx)
Date
May 31, 2012
Title
LONE STAR SECURITY & VIDEO, INC. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
its trailers bore messages concerning matters of public interest (e.g., commenting on Los
Angeles Police Department policies), which constituted political speech. Plaintiff claims
it did not raise this issue in its summary judgment motion because triable issues of fact
existed, and “[i]n light of the grant of summary judgment on an alternative theory, there
was no cause to pursue the First Amendment question at trial.”
B.
Defendant’s Position
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not preserved any claims. It points to the
stipulated final pretrial conference order and counsel’s statements to the Court
confirming that the only issue to be tried was damages. Further, under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16(e) (“Final Pretrial Conference and Orders”), “particular evidence or
theories which are not at least implicitly included in the order are barred unless the order
is first ‘modified to prevent manifest injustice.’” United States v. First Nat’l Bank of
Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 886-87 (9th Cir. 1981).
Defendant argues that the Court should not modify the Order to expand the issues
to be litigated beyond damages. Factors to be considered before modifying a pretrial
order (which Plaintiff has not even requested the Court to do) include: (1) the degree of
prejudice to the party seeking modification that would result from a failure to modify; (2)
the degree of prejudice to the party opposing modification that would result from a
modification; (3) the impact of a modification at that stage of the litigation on the orderly
and efficient conduct of the case; and (4) the degree of willfulness, bad faith or
inexcusable neglect by the party seeking modification. See id. at 887.
Defendant claims that it has found no cases permitting modification after judgment
has been entered, and concludes that Plaintiff’s “failure to raise the issues prior to trial
that it now seeks to have litigated was, if not willful and in bad faith, certainly
inexcusable neglect.” Defendant’s Reply at 6. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff
abandoned the claims it now seeks to litigate and that it would be seriously prejudiced if
Plaintiff was permitted to litigate claims dating back to 2003.
C.
CV-90 (06/04)
No Issues Remain to Be Resolved
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 4 of 6
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 03-05346 AHM (RCx)
Date
May 31, 2012
Title
LONE STAR SECURITY & VIDEO, INC. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Plaintiff acknowledges the “invalid ordinance” issue has been fully resolved.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, there are no issues remaining regarding the
“chronic offender” issue. The Ninth Circuit observed that “[Plaintiff] concedes that the
notice provided to first-time offenders was sufficient to satisfy due process, and that it
received this notice on multiple occasions.” Lone Star, 584 F.3d at 1238. The Ninth
Circuit then held that “the City’s interests in preventing vandalism, abating a nuisance
and deterring [Plaintiff’s] practices out-weigh [Plaintiff’s] uniquely low interest in
additional, individualized notices.” Id. at 1239. Plaintiff conceded it received multiple
first-time offender notices and the Ninth Circuit’s holding does not rest on any factual
determination as to whether or not Plaintiff is a “chronic offender.”
Plaintiff abandoned its remaining claims – that it did not violate the ordinance, that
post-impound hearing procedures were inadequate, and that Defendant’s actions
infringed its First Amendment rights – when it agreed to proceed and proceeded to trial
only on damages. It could have proceeded on alternative theories (for example, if it was
concerned about the possibility of an appeal) or otherwise explicitly preserved its claims,
but it failed to do so. Nor will the Court modify the Order to permit Plaintiff to proceed
at this late date. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if this case is finally concluded. As the
Ninth Circuit noted, “Lone Star raised two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending
that its federal due process rights were violated (1) because the City provided inadequate
notice before towing its vehicles, and (2) because Los Angeles Municipal Code § 80.73.2
was pre-empted by the California Vehicle Code and thus invalid.” Id. at 1235. Plaintiff
litigated these claims fully and obtained conclusive rulings. In contrast, Defendant will
certainly be prejudiced by having to defend at trial against other claims arising in 2003 -nine years ago -- which it has sound reason to believe Plaintiff abandoned. Permitting a
modification at this late stage of the litigation would also burden the Court.
Plaintiff’s counsel deserves credit for having pursued this case, and Plaintiff did
not act willfully or in bad faith. But it did neglect to pursue or preserve alternative
theories, and the administration of justice warrants this result.
///
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 5 of 6
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 03-05346 AHM (RCx)
Title
LONE STAR SECURITY & VIDEO, INC. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
III.
Date
May 31, 2012
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that no issues remain to be resolved.
Defendant shall file a [Proposed] Judgment by not later than June 11, 2012.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
SMO
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?