Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03167/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03167-0/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 are defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff’s motion

for judgment on the pleadings, and plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. 

Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment is DENIED and plaintiff’s motion for

judgment on the pleadings is DENIED without prejudice on the ground that it is premature

and the number of pages violates the Court’s standing orders and the Local Rules.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is

granted to the extent that plaintiff challenges the California Outdoor Advertising Act’s

restrictions on off-site commercial advertising. See Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego,

453 U.S. 490, 507-510 (1981); Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 810,

815-16 (9th Cir. 2003); Ackerley Communications of Northwest v. Krochalis, 108 F.3d

1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 1997). In all other respects defendant’s motion is denied. Plaintiff has 

Case 3:02-cv-03167-CRB Document 64 Filed 10/25/05 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\orderredismiss3.wpd 2

demonstrated standing to challenge the Act’s alleged restrictions on noncommercial

advertising. Judicial estoppel does not bar plaintiff from alleging that the Act applies to his

billboard, and defendant has not established that the Act exempts noncommercial speech. 

See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 953 n.5 (9th Cir. 2004).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-03167-CRB Document 64 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2