Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06067/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06067-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

USDC No. C07-6067 PJH

1 n:\land\li2010\080804\00606819.doc 

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 

SHANNON S. LINDSAY, State Bar #227174 

Reuben & Junius, LLP 

One Bush Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 567-9000 

Facsimile: (415) 399-9480 

ERIC HECKER (admitted pro hac vice) 

Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 

75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: (212) 763-5000 

Facsimile: (212) 763-5001 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

METRO FUEL LLC 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

KRISTEN A. JENSEN, State Bar #130196

THOMAS S. LAKRITZ, State Bar #161234 

VICTORIA WONG, State Bar #214289

Deputy City Attorneys 

City Hall, Room 234 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, California 94102 

Telephone: (415) 554-6547 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4757 

E-Mail: tom.lakritz@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

METRO FUEL LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal 

corporation, COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, a subdivision of the State 

of California, CITY AND COUNTY OF 

SAN FRANCISCO, a chartered California 

city and county and DOE 1 through DOE 

10, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C07-6067 PJH 

The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Hearing Date: February 11, 2010 

Time: 2:30 P.M. 

Case 4:07-cv-06067-PJH Document 123 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

USDC No. C07-6067 PJH

2 n:\land\li2010\080804\00606819.doc 

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 

 The parties in this action hereby submit this Joint Case Management Statement and advise the 

Court as follows: 

1. On April 17, 2008, Metro Fuel filed its First Amended Complaint. 

2. In its First Amended Complaint, Metro Fuel alleged one cause of action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Metro Fuel's one cause of action, however, was premised on three distinct legal 

theories. First, in paragraphs 23-80, Metro Fuel alleged that Article 6 of the San Francisco Planning 

Code violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the "Metro Lights claim"). Second, in 

paragraphs 81-89, Metro Fuel alleged that the practical effect of San Francisco's ban on new general 

advertising signs (San Francisco Planning Code section 611) is the reservation "for itself a monopoly 

over outdoor advertising signs in San Francisco" in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution (the "Government Monopoly claim"). Third, in paragraphs 90-101, Metro Fuel alleged 

that various provisions of Article 6 of the San Francisco Planning Code discriminate against noncommercial speech in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the "NonCommercial Speech claim"). 

3. On August 29, 2008, the City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) attacking Metro Fuel's Metro Lights claim on several grounds. On September 12, 

2008, Metro Fuel filed its opposition to the City's motion. 

4. On January 6, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the 

"Ninth Circuit") issued its decision in Metro Lights, L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles, 551 F.3d 898 (9th

Cir. 2009) (the "Metro Lights decision"). The Ninth Circuit held that Los Angeles's regulatory 

scheme prohibiting new off-site general advertising signs did not violate the First Amendment, even 

though Los Angeles allowed off-site advertising on city-owned transit stops and other street furniture. 

Case 4:07-cv-06067-PJH Document 123 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

USDC No. C07-6067 PJH

3 n:\land\li2010\080804\00606819.doc 

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 

5. Metro Fuel conceded that the Metro Lights decision, to the extent it is not reversed in 

an en banc proceeding or by the United States Supreme Court, disposed of its Metro Lights claim in 

this action against San Francisco. 

6. On January 20, 2009, the parties filed a stipulation stating that the parties agreed that 

this Court should grant San Francisco's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the 

Metro Lights claim alleged in paragraphs 23-80 of the First Amended Complaint. 

7. On January 22, 2009, this Court entered an order granting the City's motion for 

judgment on the pleadings in part and dismissing Metro Fuel's Metro Lights claim. 

8. On or about April 16, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

denied the petition for rehearing en banc in the Metro Lights case. 

9. Metro Fuel (which is the successor in interest to Metro Lights) filed its petition for 

certiorari to the United States Supreme Court in the Metro Lights case on August 31, 2009. 

10. On December 14, 2009, the United States Supreme Court denied Metro Fuel's petition 

for certiorari in the Metro Lights case. 

11. Metro Fuel has indicated to the City that it intends to move forward with its 

Government Monopoly and Non-Commercial Speech claims. The City believes that these claims are 

susceptible to a Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(c) motion. Metro Fuel believes that these claims are not 

susceptible to a Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(c) motion, and that any such motion would not be timely. 

12. The parties have met and conferred and propose the following briefing schedule for 

the City's Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(c) motion: 

Motion/Opening Brief 4/02/10 

Opposition Brief 4/16/10 

Reply Brief 4/23/10 

Hearing 5/26/10 at 9:00 a.m. 

Case 4:07-cv-06067-PJH Document 123 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

USDC No. C07-6067 PJH

4 n:\land\li2010\080804\00606819.doc 

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 

13. The parties request that the Case Management Conference set for February 11, 2010, 

be continued, if necessary, until after the Court rules on the City's' Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(c) motion. 

Dated: January 28, 2010 EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP 

 By:_ /S/ .

 ERIC HECKER 

Dated: January 28, 2010 REUBEN & JUNIUS, LLP 

 By:_ /S/ .

 SHANNON S. LINDSAY 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff METRO FUEL LLC. 

Dated: January 28, 2010 DENNIS J. HERRERA 

 City Attorney 

 KRISTEN A. JENSEN 

 THOMAS S. LAKRITZ 

 VICTORIA WONG 

 Deputy City Attorneys 

 By: /S/ .

 THOMAS S. LAKRITZ 

 Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY 

 OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Case 4:07-cv-06067-PJH Document 123 Filed 02/01/10 Page 4 of 6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

USDC No. C07-6067 PJH

5 n:\land\li2010\080804\00606819.doc 

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 

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

 The Case Management Conference Statement of the parties is hereby adopted by the Court as 

the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated:______________________ By: .

 HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

 United States District Court Judge 

2/1/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:07-cv-06067-PJH Document 123 Filed 02/01/10 Page 5 of 6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

USDC No. C07-6067 PJH

6 n:\land\li2010\080804\00606819.doc 

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 

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

(U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. General Order 45, Section X.B) 

 I obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document from each other signatory, or from 

the single signatory, in compliance with U.S.D.C. N.D. General Order 45, Section X.B. 

Dated: January 28, 2010 DENNIS J. HERRERA 

 City Attorney 

 KRISTEN A. JENSEN 

 THOMAS S. LAKRITZ 

 VICTORIA WONG 

 Deputy City Attorneys 

 By: /S/ 

 THOMAS S. LAKRITZ 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Case 4:07-cv-06067-PJH Document 123 Filed 02/01/10 Page 6 of 6