Show Media California, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:2009cv03270 - Document 48 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: JUDGMENT by Judge Audrey B. Collins: Plaintiffs claims for injunctive and declaratory relief directed at the old Sign Ordinance and the ICO are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs claims directed at LAMC § 91.6216.4.3 are dismissedwith prejudic e. Plaintiffs § 1983 damages claims directed at the ICO aredismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs § 1983 damages claims directed at the old Sign Ordinance are dismissed with prejudice. All stays in the action are dissolved. The Court further ORDERS that liability and damages having been ruledupon in their entirety, and, there being no claims left to litigate in this action, that this Judgment is the Final Judgment in this action. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ir)

Download PDF
Show Media California, LLC v. City of Los Angeles 1 CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney (SBN (86629) KENNETH T. FONG, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 140609) 2 MICHAEL J. BOSTROM, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 211778) 3 Room 701, City Hall East 4 200 North Main Street Los Angeles, California 90012 5 Telephone Number 213.978.8235 6 Fax Number 213.978.8214 Email: Michael.Bostrom@lacity.org 7 Doc. JS-6 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 City of Los Angeles 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SHOW MEDIA CALIFORNIA, LLC, a ) Case No.: CV-09-3270 ABC (JWJx) California limited liability company, , ) ) JUDGMENT ) Plaintiff, ) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a California ) ) municipality, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 28 Dockets.Justia.com 4 1 On June 29, 2009, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss based on, among 2 other things, the argument that Plaintiff proposed signs do not have legal 3 nonconforming status and thus would be banned by the City’s Interim Control 4 Ordinance prohibiting new off-site signs. 5 On November 16, 2009, the Court granted the City’s Motion to Dismiss in 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 part. Specifically, the Court dismissed all of the claims in the Complaint except for Plaintiff’s 1983 damages claim directed at the old Sign Ordinance. In the course of its ruling, the Court upheld Los Angeles Municipal Code § 91.6216.4.3, which limits the renovation or replacement of an existing sign to “50 percent of the replacement cost of both the sign and sign support structure.” On October 13, 2010, the parties executed a stipulation to dismiss all remaining claims in the Complaint and, on October 15, 2010, the Court signed 14 the order dismissing those claims with prejudice. Thus, this Court, the Honorable Audrey B. Collins, ORDERS as follows: 15 16 1. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief directed at 17 the old Sign Ordinance and the ICO are dismissed with prejudice. 2. Plaintiff’s claims directed at LAMC § 91.6216.4.3 are dismissed 18 19 with prejudice. 20 3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 damages claims directed at the ICO are 21 dismissed with prejudice. 22 4. Plaintiff’s § 1983 damages claims directed at the old Sign 23 Ordinance are dismissed with prejudice. 24 5. All stays in the action are dissolved. 25 26 27 28 1 1 The Court further ORDERS that liability and damages having been ruled 2 upon in their entirety, and, there being no claims left to litigate in this action, that 3 this Judgment is the Final Judgment in this action. 4 5 6 7 Dated: 10/15/2010 8 ________________________ Hon. Audrey B. Collins U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 9 10 M:\Real Prop_Env_Land Use\Land_Use\Land Use\Kenneth Fong\ Show Media California\Pleadings\Judgment.doc 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.