Citizens for Free Speech, LLC et al v. County of Alameda

Filing 50

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 9/4/2014. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

CITIZENS FOR FREE SPEECH, LLC,
ET AL.,

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

12
13
14
15

No. C14-02513 CRB

Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,
Defendant.

/

16
17

On August 5, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction in

18

this case. See generally Order Granting Mot. for Prelim. Injunct. (dkt. 34). Specifically, the

19

Court found that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail in demonstrating that the Zoning Ordinance

20

was facially overbroad because it: (1) gives the Public Works Agency and Historic

21

Landmarks Commission unfettered discretion to approve or disapprove signs; (2) gives the

22

Planning Commission unfettered discretion to grant or deny conditional use permits in PD

23

Districts; and (3) contains no procedural safeguard to ensure that decisions by the Public

24

Works Agency, the Historic Landmarks Commission, or the Planning Commission, or

25

decisions on whether to grant or deny a variance, are rendered within a specific time frame.

26

See id.; id. at 12-17. The Court further found that Plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable

27

injury if the County was not enjoined from enforcing the Zoning Ordinance against them,

28

and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored the grant of an injunction. Id. at

1

17-18. The Court subsequently directed the parties to submit further briefing about the

2

appropriate scope of the injunction, see Order Directing Supp. Briefing (dkt. 42), and has

3

received and considered the parties’ submissions, see Def.’s Response (dkt. 45), Pltfs.

4

Response (dkt. 49).

5

Accordingly, Defendant the County of Alameda, its employees, agents, officers,

6

managers, delegates, or assigns, and those in active concert or participation are hereby

7

ENJOINED AND PROHIBITED, pending trial of this action, from any and all conduct in

8

enforcement of sections 17.18.130 and 17.54.080 the Zoning Ordinance1 that prohibits

9

Plaintiffs from displaying the Signs, encumbers Plaintiffs’ right to display the Signs,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

interferes with Plaintiffs’ practical ability to display the Signs, or penalizes or punishes

11

Plaintiffs’ property relating to the Signs. No bond is required.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE

Dated: September 4, 2014
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

As Defendant noted in its supplemental response, there is no evidence that 17.52.520(D) (about
historical landmarks) or 17.52.520(R) (about bust stop benches and transit shelters), which the Court
found overbroad, are at all applicable to Plaintiffs. See Def.’s Response at 6-7.
2