Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03167/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03167-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANO MALDONADO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WILL KEMPTON, in his capacity as

Director of the California Department of

Transportation,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 02-03167 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of his

constitutional facial challenge to certain provisions of the California Outdoor Advertising

Act, Business & Professions Code § 5200 et seq. (“COAA” or “the Act”). After reading the

parties’ papers, the Court concluded that plaintiff is pursuing claims that have been dismissed

from this lawsuit.

Plaintiff owns a billboard adjacent to a “landscaped freeway” as defined by section

5216(a) of the Act. First Amended Complaint at ¶ 30. The Act prohibits all billboard

advertising displays adjacent to landscaped freeways. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 5440. 

However, the Act permits billboard advertisements for (1) the sale or lease of the property

upon which the advertising display is placed; (2) to designate the name of the owner or

occupant of the premises; (3) to identify the premises; (4) or to advertise goods or services 

Case 3:02-cv-03167-CRB Document 84 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2002\3167\ordersj1.wpd 2

available on the premises (“on-premises” advertising). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 5442.

The Court has previously ruled that the Act’s distinction between on-premises and

off-premises advertising is constitutional, and therefore dismissed plaintiff’s challenge to the

Act to the extent he claimed that distinction was unconstitutional. See Maldonado v.

Kempton, No. C 02-3167 CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2005) (order granting in part defendant’s

motion to dismiss). Nonetheless, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment appears to

reargue the issue. The Court, however, will not revisit the issue. The remaining issue is

whether the Act prohibits all non-commercial speech, and if so, does this prohibition render

the Act unconstitutional as it permits on-premises commercial speech. 

The Court also previously ruled that plaintiff does not have standing to challenge the

permit/license provisions of the Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Article 4 at §5300 et seq.; Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code Article 6 at § 5350 et seq.). See Maldonado v. Kempton, No. C 02-03167

CRB (N.D. Cal. N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2002). Plaintiff did not appeal this ruling, therefore it is

the law of the case. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that

Maldonado did not challenge this Court’s ruling that he lacked standing to challenge the

provisions of the Act dealing with permits). Plaintiff’s challenge to the permit/license

provisions is dismissed and will not be considered by the Court.

The oral argument scheduled for January 27, 2006 is continued to 10:00 a.m. on

February 17, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-03167-CRB Document 84 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2