People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority et al, No. 2:2021cv07662 - Document 60 (C.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT & PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: The Court GRANTS JUDGMENT to Plaintiff People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and against Defendant Los Angele s County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); The Court DECLARES that Metros prohibition on non-commercial advertising isunconstitutional and violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; Metro, and it officers, agents, em ployees, attorneys, and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with them, are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED and prohibited from enforcing, through any action or omission or otherwise, Metros prohibition on non-commercial advertisi ng; Metro, and it officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and all other persons who are inactive concert or participation with them, are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED and prohibited from enforcing, through any action or omission or otherwise, Metros e xception to its prohibition on non-commercial advertising for nonprofit organizations that partner with a public agency specifically created by government action located in Los Angeles County or a Federal or State of California Governmental Agency f or the joint purpose of the non-profit organization and the Governmental Agency PETA may seek an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 by subsequent motion. See order for more information. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (shb)

Download PDF
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Los Angeles County M... Transit Authority et al 1 Doc. 60 J S -6 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 8 THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-07662-SSS-MAAx FINAL JUDGMENT & PERMANENT INJUNCTION Plaintiff, vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com In accordance with this Court’s orders in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 1 2 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 3 (1) The Court GRANTS JUDGMENT to Plaintiff People for the Ethical Treatment of 4 Animals (“PETA) and against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- 5 portation Authority (“Metro”); (2) The Court DECLARES that Metro’s prohibition on non-commercial advertising is 6 unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; 7 (3) The Court DECLARES that Metro’s exception to its prohibition on non-commer- 8 cial advertising for non-profit organizations that partner with a public agency specif- 9 10 ically created by government action located in Los Angeles County or a Federal or 11 State of California Governmental Agency for the joint purpose of the non-profit or- 12 ganization and the Governmental Agency is unconstitutional and violates the First 13 Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) Metro, and it officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and all other persons who are in 14 15 active concert or participation with them, are hereby PERMANENTLY 16 ENJOINED and prohibited from enforcing, through any action or omission or oth- 17 erwise, Metro’s prohibition on non-commercial advertising; (5) Metro, and it officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and all other persons who are in 18 19 active concert or participation with them, are hereby PERMANENTLY 20 ENJOINED and prohibited from enforcing, through any action or omission or oth- 21 erwise, Metro’s exception to its prohibition on non-commercial advertising for non- 22 profit organizations that partner with a public agency specifically created by govern- 23 ment action located in Los Angeles County or a Federal or State of California Gov- 24 ernmental Agency for the joint purpose of the non-profit organization and the Gov- 25 ernmental Agency; 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -2- 1 2 (6) PETA may seek an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 by subsequent motion. 3 4 5 6 Dated: January 4, 2023 ________________________ SUNSHINE S. SYKES United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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.