GEFT OUTDOOR, L.L.C. v. CITY OF WESTFIELD, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA

Filing 191

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION - For the reasons discussed above, GEFT's Motion for Clarification, (Filing No. 187 ), is GRANTED, and the Court clarifies that the September 28, 2018 injunction remains in effect. Westfie ld's Motion to Stay (Filing No. 178 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion to Stay the trial date is granted, and the October 26, 2020 trial date is vacated. The trial will be reset after the appeal has been resolved. The Motion to Stay implementation of the September 30, 2020 injunction during the pendency of the appeal is denied, and Westfield remains enjoined from enforcing Sections 6.17(C), 6.17(D), 6.17 (E)(4), and 6.17(E)(5) of the UDO and AUDO. Because implementati on of the September 30, 2020 injunction is not stayed, Westfield is not required to post a bond. Rulings on the remaining pending motions, Defendants' Motion For Clarification Of Entry On Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment [Doc. 171 ] (Filing No. 189 ); and GEFT's Motion for Permanent Injunction (Filing No. 190 ), are forthcoming. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/13/2020.(NAD)

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 4636

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
GEFT OUTDOOR, L.L.C., and
JEFFREY S. LEE,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF WESTFIELD, HAMILTON COUNTY, )
INDIANA, and CITY OF WESTFIELD BOARD )
OF ZONING APPEALS,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Stay filed by Defendants the City of
Westfield and the City of Westfield Board of Zoning Appeals (collectively, "Westfield"), (Filing
No. 178), and a Motion for Clarification filed by Plaintiff GEFT Outdoor, LLC ("GEFT"), (Filing
No. 187). On September 30, 2020, the Court issued an Entry on Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment, ruling in favor of GEFT on its First Amendment free speech claims against Westfield
(Filing No. 171). In its Entry, the Court enjoined Westfield "from enforcing Sections 6.17(C),
6.17(D), 6.17(E)(4), and 6.17(E)(5) of the UDO and Amended UDO", which constitute a portion
of Westfield's "sign standards." Id. at 40. Westfield promptly filed a notice of appeal, seeking the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' review of the summary judgment Entry, (Filing No. 176).
Westfield also filed a Motion to Stay, asking the Court to stay these proceedings, including a stay
of the trial date and a stay of implementation of the injunction, until its appeal has been resolved
by the Seventh Circuit. GEFT responded to the Motion to Stay and filed a Motion for Clarification,
asking the Court to clarify whether the earlier preliminary injunction is still in effect. For the

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 4637

following reasons, the Motion to Stay is granted in part and denied in part, and the Motion for
Clarification is granted.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"The standard for granting a stay pending appeal mirrors that for granting a preliminary
injunction." A&F Enters., Inc. II v. IHOP Franchising LLC, 742 F.3d 763, 766 (7th Cir. 2014).
"To determine whether to grant a stay, [courts] consider the moving party's likelihood of success
on the merits, the irreparable harm that will result to each side if the stay is either granted or denied
in error, and whether the public interest favors one side or the other." Id. "As with a motion for a
preliminary injunction, a 'sliding scale' approach applies; the greater the moving party's likelihood
of success on the merits, the less heavily the balance of harms must weigh in its favor, and vice
versa." Id. The purpose of a stay pending appeal "is to minimize the costs of error." Id.
II.

BACKGROUND

This case involves GEFT’s desire to build a digital billboard in Westfield, Indiana.
Because the sign regulations contained in the City’s Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO")
and Amended Unified Development Ordinance ("AUDO") did not allow for the type of billboard
that GEFT wants to build, GEFT challenged certain sign regulations as unconstitutional. The
Court incorporates by reference the full background facts set forth in the Entry on Cross-Motions
for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 171 at 2–8).
On September 28, 2018, the Court issued an Entry on Defendant's Motion for Restraining
Order and Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 76). That Entry focused on
GEFT's due process claims and denied preliminary injunctive relief to GEFT while granting the
restraining order requested by Westfield. The Court concluded, "GEFT is ORDERED to not
continue any work on its pole and digital sign in Westfield until after resolution of this case on the

2

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 4638

merits." Id. at 16. Then on September 30, 2020, the Court issued an Entry on Cross-Motions for
Summary Judgment, resolving GEFT's First Amendment, Section 1983, abuse of process, and
"Home Rule" claims on the merits. However, the Court's Entry noted that GEFT's claim for
compensatory damages for the infringement of its protected speech rights, Count VII (Declaratory
Judgment Declaring that Plaintiffs were not Required to Exhaust Administrative Remedies), and
Count VIII (Petition for Review of BZA Decision), would proceed beyond the summary judgment
stage (see Filing No. 171 at 39–40). The Court ruled in GEFT’s favor on certain claims and
enjoined the City from enforcing:
• Section 6.17(C) – the sign permit requirement;
• Section 6.17(D) – the exceptions to the sign permit requirement;
• 6.17(E)(4) – the prohibition of Pole Signs; and
• 6.17(E)(5) – the prohibition of Off-Premises signs.
Id. at 40. Westfield's Notice of Appeal and Motion to Stay and GEFT's Motion for Clarification
swiftly followed.
III. DISCUSSION
The Court will first address GEFT's Motion for Clarification and then turn to Westfield's
Motion to Stay.
A.

GEFT's Motion for Clarification
In the Motion, GEFT asks the Court to
clarify that the September 28, 2018 injunction (Doc. 76) which enjoins GEFT from
“any work on its pole and digital sign in Westfield until after resolution of this case
on the merits” (Doc. 76) is no longer in effect based on the Court’s recent order on
the merits of the parties’ respective summary judgment motions. GEFT does not
believe that injunction remains in place, but would like clarification from the Court
before starting work at the site.

(Filing No. 187 at 1.)

3

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4639

GEFT then asserts, "One thing Westfield and GEFT agree upon is that unless the Seventh
Circuit reverses the Court's Summary Judgment Order (Doc. 171), 'there are no other
impediments to GEFT’s building a billboard, and GEFT is able to erect a billboard.' (Westfield
Motion to Stay, Doc. 178, ¶10, p.3)(emphasis added)." Id. (emphasis in original). GEFT argues
that the Court's original injunction in this case no longer applies because the constitutional issues
have been decided on the merits, so GEFT can construct the billboard pending results of the appeal.
In concluding its argument, GEFT contends,
[T]he Defendants admitted in their recent Motion to Stay: “[I]f GEFT prevails [on
appeal] at the Seventh Circuit, there are no other impediments to GEFT’s building
[the Billboard.” (Doc. 178, ¶ 10, p. 3, filed on Sunday, October 4, 2020 (emphasis
added)). Otherwise stated, without the stay Westfield seeks, Westfield reaches the
same conclusion as GEFT: That GEFT can now build the billboard.
(Filing No. 187 at 4.) (Emphasis in original.)
However, the Court does not think the Defendants' admissions mean what GEFT thinks
they mean. This is because GEFT has taken Westfield's "no other impediment" statement out of
context and presented an argument on Westfield's behalf that Westfield did not make. Westfield's
statement in context states "if GEFT prevails at the Seventh Circuit, there are no other impediments
to GEFT’s building a billboard, and GEFT is able to erect a billboard, then there will be no need
for a trial on damages for the value of a billboard." (Filing No. 178 at 3 (emphasis added).) In
context, it is clear that Westfield is not conceding that GEFT may now build its sign if Westfield
is not granted a stay. Rather, Westfield argues no trial is necessary on damages if GEFT prevails
on appeal, if there are no other impediments to construction, and if GEFT builds its sign.
The basis of the September 2018 Entry denying GEFT's request for preliminary injunctive
relief is that GEFT had failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction for its due
process claims. Having failed to do so, GEFT was enjoined from continuing any work on its pole

4

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 4640

and digital sign in Westfield until after resolution of this case on the merits. The parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment on most of GEFT's claims, which presented the Court the
opportunity to resolve those claims on their merits if there were no disputed material facts.
Through the summary judgment proceedings, the Court concluded that GEFT's abuse of process,
Section 1983, and "Home Rule" claims could not survive summary judgment. On the other hand,
the Court determined that GEFT was entitled to summary judgment on its First Amendment claims
and, thus, granted judgment in favor of GEFT on those claims. As a result of the Court's summary
judgment ruling, six of GEFT's claims have been resolved on the merits. But two additional claims
remain as well as GEFT's claim for compensatory damages for the infringement of its protected
speech rights.
As noted in Westfield's reply brief supporting its Motion to Stay, Count VIII of GEFT's
Second Amended and Supplemental Complaints remains pending for resolution.

GEFT's

summary judgment motion was partial only, and the parties never presented that claim to the Court
for summary judgment consideration. The parties also did not present arguments to the Court
concerning various other regulations in the UDO and AUDO that Westfield asserts are an
impediment to GEFT completing construction of its sign, and which the Court presumes relate to
Count VIII. Because two claims have not yet been resolved on the merits, and one of those claims
(as suggested by Westfield) might thwart GEFT's sign construction, the Court grants GEFT's
Motion for Clarification and clarifies that the September 28, 2018 injunction remains in effect.
While some of the claims have been resolved on the merits, the case has not yet been resolved on
the merits.
B.

Westfield's Motion to Stay
Westfield asks the Court to

5

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 4641

stay these proceedings, including a stay of the trial date and a stay of
implementation of the injunction imposed by the Court’s Entry on Cross-Motions
for Summary Judgment [Filing No. 171], pending resolution of the defendants’
interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
They also request relief from the bond requirement.
(Filing No. 178 at 1.)
Westfield argues a stay is appropriate "because if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
reverses this Court’s ruling and finds that the challenged portions of the sign standards are not
unconstitutional, there will be no need for a trial." Id. at 3. Westfield contends a trial on October
26, 2020, as currently scheduled, would be a waste of resources and time for the Court and the
parties.
Westfield additionally asks the Court to stay implementation of the September 30, 2020
summary judgment injunction because of the unique hardship it will impose on Westfield and
potentially its citizens. If the injunction is not stayed during the pending appeal, Westfield argues,
it "may experience a significant and overwhelming influx of non-conforming signs, which will
cause harm to legitimate and compelling interests of the City, particularly traffic safety and visual
aesthetics." Id. It argues that "without a permitting process the citizenry will not seek the input of
the City when seeking to comply with the many sections of the Sign Standards in the UDO which
this Court upheld," id. at 3–4, and "[s]hould the City prevail in its appeal, the cost to private citizens
of removing non-conforming signs that are violative of the sign standards will be substantial." Id.
at 4. Westfield suggests that a "stay of the injunction pending determination of the appeal will
avoid these hardships to the City and its larger citizenry." Id.
In response, GEFT argues a stay is inappropriate because Westfield has not shown, or even
attempted to show, that it has a likelihood of success on appeal, and any alleged harm to Westfield
is far outweighed by the harm to GEFT in its ongoing suppression of protected speech. GEFT

6

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 4642

points the Court to a plethora of case law addressing the importance and priority of First
Amendment rights and the high bar for obtaining a stay. GEFT argues that Westfield has very
little likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, and GEFT, not Westfield, will suffer
irreparable harm if a stay is granted. GEFT also presents arguments concerning Westfield's
"unclean hands" and the need to post a bond. GEFT does not oppose a short continuance of the
trial date so that it can evaluate its claims against Westfield.
Westfield replies that seven sections of the UDO and AUDO, which have not been
considered by the Court, prohibit GEFT from constructing its billboard. "Whether one or more of
these seven sections of the UDO and Amended UDO prohibit GEFT from building the billboard
remains undecided because the Court did not address GEFT’s 'Petition for Review of BZA
Decision' asserted in the 'Eighth Cause of Action.'" (Filing No. 188 at 3.) Thus, "GEFT’s win on
the First Amendment issues does not in and of itself entitle GEFT to build the billboard." Id. "Even
if the Court’s ruling on the First Amendment issues is affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals, GEFT still cannot build the billboard." Id. at 5–6. Westfield argues that, because GEFT
is not entitled to construct its billboard at this point, staying the injunction will not impact GEFT's
current position and is appropriate.
Concerning the request to continue the trial date, the Court agrees that vacating the October
26, 2020 trial date is appropriate and warranted to preserve the time and resources. Therefore,
Westfield's Motion to Stay the trial date is granted, the October 26, 2020 trial date is vacated, and
the trial will be reset after the appeal has been resolved.
Concerning a stay, as noted above, to obtain a stay of an injunction pending an appeal,
Westfield must show a likelihood of success on the merits, an irreparable harm that will result if
the stay is denied in error, and the public interest favors Westfield. Westfield appealed the Court's

7

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 4643

Entry on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, which enjoins Westfield from enforcing Sections
6.17(C), 6.17(D), 6.17(E)(4), and 6.17(E)(5) of the UDO and AUDO because they violate the First
Amendment. In its Motion to Stay and reply brief, Westfield has presented no argument that it is
likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the First Amendment claims. Even if, in the end,
GEFT is not permitted to construct its billboard because of one or more of the other seven sections
of the UDO and AUDO, this is wholly irrelevant to the issue before the Court on the Motion to
Stay—has Westfield shown a likelihood of success on appeal that the Seventh Circuit will hold
Sections 6.17(C), 6.17(D), 6.17(E)(4), and 6.17(E)(5) do not violate the First Amendment.
Westfield has not even attempted to argue this.
While it is not inconceivable that the Seventh Circuit could reach a different conclusion
and decide that Sections 6.17(C), 6.17(D), 6.17(E)(4), and 6.17(E)(5) of the UDO and AUDO do
not violate the First Amendment rights of GEFT, recent data 1 suggests that Westfield is not likely
to succeed on the merits of the First Amendment claims and obtain a reversal of this Court's
summary judgment Entry.
Regarding harm if a stay is not granted, Westfield suggests that it "may experience a
significant and overwhelming influx of non-conforming signs, which will cause harm to legitimate
and compelling interests of the City, particularly traffic safety and visual aesthetics." (Filing No.
178 at 3.) It is highly unlikely that Westfield's hypothetical injury—the streets of Westfield being
adorned with countless bright, flashy billboards, transforming Westfield's thoroughfares into New
York City's Times Square or Las Vegas' Strip—will come to pass if a stay is not granted during
the pendency of its appeal. Even if a handful of non-conforming signs are erected throughout

1

Fewer than 9% of total appeals resulted in reversals of lower court decisions in 2015 with a reversal rate of 14.2%
for private civil actions. See "Just the Facts: U.S. Courts of Appeals," https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2016/12/20/justfacts-us-courts-appeals (last accessed Oct. 8, 2020).

8

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 4644

Westfield while its appeal is considered, those signs would not inflict an irreparable injury upon
Westfield because the signs could be removed at the expense of the sign owner if the Seventh
Circuit concludes Westfield's sign standards are constitutionally valid.
Furthermore, Westfield's arbitrary and capricious decision to allow digital, off-premises
signs at Westfield High School and a "Westfield" pole sign on U.S. 31—facing the same road and
only two miles from GEFT's proposed sign location—while prohibiting GEFT's digital, offpremise pole sign undercuts Westfield's argument concerning harm to its interests in traffic safety
and community aesthetics.
Simply put, Westfield has not met its burden to obtain a stay of the injunction during the
pendency of its appeal. It has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or an irreparable
harm in the absence of a stay. Therefore, the Court denies Westfield's Motion to Stay
implementation of the September 2020 injunction during the pendency of its appeal. Westfield
remains enjoined "from enforcing Sections 6.17(C), 6.17(D), 6.17(E)(4), and 6.17(E)(5) of the
UDO and Amended UDO." (Filing No. 171 at 40.)
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, GEFT's Motion for Clarification, (Filing No. 187), is
GRANTED, and the Court clarifies that the September 28, 2018 injunction remains in effect.
Westfield's Motion to Stay (Filing No. 178) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The
Motion to Stay the trial date is granted, and the October 26, 2020 trial date is vacated. The trial
will be reset after the appeal has been resolved. The Motion to Stay implementation of the
September 30, 2020 injunction during the pendency of the appeal is denied, and Westfield remains
enjoined from enforcing Sections 6.17(C), 6.17(D), 6.17(E)(4), and 6.17(E)(5) of the UDO and

9

Case 1:17-cv-04063-TWP-TAB Document 191 Filed 10/13/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 4645

AUDO. Because implementation of the September 30, 2020 injunction is not stayed, Westfield is
not required to post a bond.
Rulings on the remaining pending motions, Defendants’ Motion For Clarification Of Entry
On Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment [Doc. 171] (Filing No. 189); and GEFT's Motion for
Permanent Injunction (Filing No. 190), are forthcoming.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/13/2020

DISTRIBUTION:
A. Richard M. Blaiklock
LEWIS WAGNER, LLP
[e-mail]

Pamela G. Schneeman
STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER
[e-mail]

Charles R. Whybrew
LEWIS WAGNER LLP
[e-mail]

James S. Stephenson
STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER
[e-mail]

Taylor L. Fontan
LEWIS WAGNER LLP
[e-mail]

Mark J. R. Merkle
KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
[e-mail]

Blake P. Holler
KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
[e-mail]

10