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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?