ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Filing 45

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ECF NO. 27 , IS DENIED. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 30 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN PLAINTIFFS FA VOR AS TO ITS CLAIM THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR NOT INCLUDING TIME LIMITS TO ACT ON PERMIT APPLICATIONS (FACIAL CHALLENGE). THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IN 36 P.S. § 2718.107 IS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. B. THE SECRETARY OF PENNDOT IS PERMAN ENTLY ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IN 36 P.S. § 2718.107 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PENNDOT PROVIDES FOR INTERNAL TIME LIMITS ON PERMITTING DECISIONS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION. C. THE MOTION IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECT S. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 31 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AS TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE INTERCHANGE PROHIBITION IN 36 P.S. § 2718.105(C)(2)(I) VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. B. PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE EXEMPTIONS IN 36 P.S. § 2718.104 AND 36 P.S. § 2718.105(C)(2)(IV) ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS DENIED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO RAISE THIS CLAIM. C. P LAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF THE ONE-YEAR DELAY BEFORE ITS APPLICATION WAS DECIDED (AS-APPLIED CHALLENGE) IS DENIED AS MOOT. D. THE MOTION IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. THE CASE IS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 6/5/18. 6/5/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
v.
:
:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
:
TRANSPORTATION; 1 and
:
LESLIE S. RICHARDS,
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________

No. 5:17-cv-01253

ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 27 - Denied
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 30 – Granted in part, Denied in part
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 31 – Granted in part, Denied in part
AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2018, for the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this
date, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 27, is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 30, is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part as follows:
A.

Summary judgment is GRANTED and judgment is ENTERED in

Plaintiff’s favor as to its claim that the Act is unconstitutional for not including time
limits to act on permit applications (facial challenge). The permit requirement in 36 P.S.
§ 2718.107 is DECLARED unconstitutional.
B.

The Secretary of PennDOT is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from

enforcing the permit requirement in 36 P.S. § 2718.107 until such time as PennDOT
provides for internal time limits on permitting decisions in a manner consistent with the
Opinion.
C.
1

The Motion is DENIED in all other respects.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) was terminated as a
Defendant on August 4, 2017.
1
060518

3.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 31, is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part as follows:
A.

Summary judgment is GRANTED and judgment is ENTERED in favor

of Defendant as to Plaintiff’s claim that the Interchange Prohibition in 36 P.S. §
2718.105(c)(2)(i) violates the First Amendment.
B.

Plaintiff’s claim that the exemptions in 36 P.S. § 2718.104 and 36 P.S. §

2718.105(c)(2)(iv) are unconstitutional is DENIED because Plaintiff lacks standing to
raise this claim.
C.

Plaintiff’s claim that the Act is unconstitutional because of the one-year

delay before its application was decided (as-applied challenge) is DENIED as moot.
D.
4.

The Motion is DENIED in all other respects.

The case is CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge

2
060518