Boyer v. City of Simi Valley, No. 19-55723 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the City of Simi Valley's regulations prohibiting mobile billboards on public property unless they qualify as authorized emergency or construction-related vehicles. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims on the pleadings.
The Ninth Circuit held that the City's mobile billboard regulations favor certain speakers where allowing certain speakers to park mobile billboards on public property but not others reflects a content preference. On its face, the Authorized Vehicle Exemption is content neutral, but to execute its purpose, the City enacted an ordinance that prefers speakers likely to spread messages consistent with its purpose. The panel stated that this is a prudent preference, a reasonable rationale, and a content-based choice that triggers strict scrutiny. Therefore, the panel vacated the district court's order granting the City's motion to dismiss regarding plaintiff's First Amendment claims. Because the district court concluded the ordinances were content neutral, it evaluated the sufficiency of plaintiff's complaint against the wrong standard. The panel remanded plaintiff's claims for the district court to reconsider it under the strict scrutiny standard. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not err by declining plaintiff's request to remand his state law claims to state court.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), of an action challenging the constitutionality of the City of Simi Valley’s regulations prohibiting mobile billboards on public property unless they qualify as authorized emergency or construction-related vehicles. The district court found that the City’s ordinances were content-neutral and reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that did not violate the First Amendment. The panel inferred, from the Simi Valley Municipal Code § 4-9.501, that the City believed it was “reasonable and necessary” to exempt authorized vehicles from displaying billboards on public property to “protect the health, safety, and welfare” of the community. The panel stated that the City’s ordinance exempting authorized emergency or construction-related vehicles from the prohibition on mobile billboard advertising made sense only if the panel assumed that authorized vehicles were more likely to display messages that promote public health, safety, and welfare than nonauthorized vehicles. The panel stated that to execute its purpose of health, safety and welfare, the City enacted an ordinance that preferred speakers likely to spread messages consistent with its purpose. The panel held that BOYER V. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY 3 this was a prudent preference, a reasonable rationale, and a content-based choice that triggered strict scrutiny. The panel held that the exemption could not be justified as a mere codification of the government speech doctrine because the exemption did not limit authorized vehicles to displaying only those messages made by government entities or that were effectively controlled by the City. Because the exemption allowed authorized vehicles to display messages that were not subject to government control, the exemption could not avoid strict scrutiny based on the government speech doctrine. Noting that the parties had not briefed the strict scrutiny standard on appeal or below, the panel declined to apply this standard in the first instance and instead instructed the district court on remand to consider plaintiff’s claims consistent with its opinion. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s state law claims and held that the district court did not err in declining plaintiff’s request to remand the claims to state court. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, it could evaluate them on the merits and dismiss them with prejudice at the same time it dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims. 4 BOYER V. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
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.