Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05438/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05438-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND REUDY and KEVIN HICKS dba

ADVERTISING DISPLAY SYSTEMS,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOORS, INC., a

Delaware Corporation, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-02-5438 SC

ORDER RE: SPECIAL

MASTER'S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Special Master in the above matter has rendered his

Report and Recommendation dated March 23, 2007 and filed April 3,

2007.

The Court after having read, reviewed, and considered said

report and recommendation, hereby approves and accepts the

recommendations in the following particulars:

The Court issues the following orders:

1. Clear Channel's motion to dismiss:

 Clear Channel's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' 2002 lawsuit

against it based on the doctrine of abstention is DENIED. The

Court Orders, as in its original Order of April 11, 2003, to

continue to stay the action pursuant to the doctrine of primary

jurisdiction until November 16, 2007, at which time the City's

enforcement of its sign ordinance can be reevaluated. It is also

Ordered that the stay apply to the 25 signs (originally ordered

for review).

Case 3:02-cv-05438-SC Document 279 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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 2

2. Defendants CBS and Roche's Motion to Dismiss: 

The Court finds that the Release Agreement bars all of

Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants CBS and Roche.

3. Nuisance, unjust enrichment and violations of the 

antitrust laws:

 The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state causes

of action against any of the Defendants for nuisance, unjust

enrichment or violations of the antitrust laws.

4. Intentional interference with an economic relation: 

The Court will allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint

regarding their cause of action for interference with an economic

relation; however, this action only remains viable as to Defendant

Clear Channel. Furthermore, Plaintiffs will be given one final

opportunity to amend the Complaint. Plaintiffs must plead a

specific economic relationship that was interfered with within the

two year statute of limitations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-05438-SC Document 279 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 2