Maldonado

Maldonado v. Kempton

Good Law
422 F. Supp. 2d 1169·2006 WL 753019·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38418
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 23, 2006C 02 03167 CRBCalifornia4,744 words

Opinion

Opinion

Breyer, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this section 1983 action plaintiff alleges that California’s Outdoor Advertising Act (“the Act” or “COAA”) violates the First Amendment on its face. Now pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Having reviewed the memoranda submitted by the parties, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent defendant moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs facial challenge. The Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to the extent plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the Act on the ground that it impermissibly favors commercial over non-commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment.

BACKGROUND

I. Undisputed Facts

This case arises from a long-running dispute between plaintiff and the California Department of Transportation (“Cal-trans”) regarding the use of plaintiffs billboard. Plaintiff owns a commercial building located at 3600 Rolison Road adjacent to the southbound lanes of Highway 101 in Redwood City. In the mid-1950’s a double-sided billboard was mounted on the roof of plaintiffs…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.