Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00093/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00093-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of San Francisco
Defendant
Contest Promotions, LLC
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONTEST PROMOTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00093-SI 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 57

This Court has presided over several disputes between plaintiff Contest Promotions LLC 

(“Contest Promotions”) and defendant City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco” or “the 

City”) related to San Francisco’s sign regulations.1 On July 28, 2015, the Court dismissed this 

lawsuit with prejudice, Dkt. No. 43, and plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The parties 

finished briefing the appeal in June 2016 and await oral argument. 

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pending appeal.

2

 Plaintiff seeks an 

injunction to prevent the City from enforcing provisions of the San Francisco City Planning Code 

(the “Planning Code”) and from levying associated fines. On December 21, 2016, the Court held 

a hearing on plaintiff’s motion. After careful consideration of papers submitted, the Court hereby 

DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

BACKGROUND

The Court set forth a detailed factual background in its previous orders in this case, as well 

 

1 Case Nos. 09-cv-04434 (closed Feb. 4, 2013), 15-cv-04365 (closed Mar. 17, 2016), 15-

cv-00093 (closed July 28, 2015), appeal docketed, No. 15-16682 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015), and 16-

cv-06539 (filed Nov. 10, 2016).

2

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Case No. 16-cv-06539. 

This order does not address that motion.

Case 3:15-cv-00093-SI Document 73 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 4
2

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

as in a recently filed order in the most recent related case. See Dkt. Nos. 25, 43; Contest 

Promotions LLC v. City & Cnty. of S.F., Case. No. 16-cv-06539-SI, Dkt. No. 27. The Court will 

not repeat a detailed background here.

In this case, this Court twice rejected Contest Promotions’ argument that Planning Code 

section 602.3 operates as an unconstitutional burden on speech. Dkt. Nos. 25, 43. Contest 

Promotions appealed from the Court’s judgment on August 25, 2015. Dkt. No. 47. The City 

served Contest Promotions with new Notices of Enforcement (“NOEs”) in October and 

November 2016, and Contest Promotions filed this motion for an injunction pending resolution of 

the appeal. Mot. (Dkt. No. 57). At the same time, and premised on the same new NOEs, Contest 

Promotions filed a new action challenging provisions of Article 6 of the Planning Code, and filed 

a motion for a preliminary injunction in that case. See Contest Promotions, LLC v. City and Cnty.

of S.F., No. 16-cv-6539 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 10, 2016). 

LEGAL STANDARD

When a notice of appeal is filed, jurisdiction over the matters being appealed normally 

transfers from the district court to the appeals court. See Marrese v. Am. Academy of Orthopaedic 

Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985) (“In general, filing of a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction 

on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case 

involved in the appeal.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide an exception, however,

that allows the district court to retain jurisdiction to “suspend, modify, restore, or grant an 

injunction” during the pendency of the appeal. Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c)). 

“The district court retains jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal to act to preserve 

the status quo.” Natural Res. Def. Council Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 

2001) (citations omitted). However, Rule 62(c) “does not restore jurisdiction to the district court 

to adjudicate anew the merits of the case.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

“The district court’s exercise of jurisdiction should not materially alter the status of the case on 

appeal.” Mayweathers, 258 F.3d at 935 (citation in internal quotation marks omitted). 

Case 3:15-cv-00093-SI Document 73 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Under Rule 62(c), the factors regulating the issuance of the injunction are “(1) whether the 

stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the 

applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will 

substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest 

lies.” See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). The standard for a Rule 62(c) 

injunction pending appeal is similar to the standard for a preliminary injunction, Lopez v. Heckler, 

713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1983), which requires the plaintiff to “establish that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 

Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). 

DISCUSSION

This Court has fully adjudicated Contest Promotions’ request for injunctive relief as to the

new NOEs in the new action it filed, 16-cv-6539, Dkt. No. 27. 

In addition, however, Contest Promotions brings this motion under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 62(c), which permits district courts to “suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction 

on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party’s rights” while an appeal is 

pending. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). The City does not dispute the applicability of Rule 62(c); but an 

injunction under Rule 62(c) is only appropriate where it merely “act[s] to preserve the status quo.” 

Natural Res. Def. Council, 242 F.3d at 1166 (citations omitted). Where “[i]f granted, . . . the 

effect will be to give [an] appellant the fruits of victory whether or not the appeal has merit[,]” an 

injunction should issue only where the “appellant has presented a substantial question for 

consideration on appeal.” Jimenez v. Barber, 252 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1958).

In July 2015, this Court entered judgment for the City. Over a year later, plaintiff filed this

motion for an injunction pending appeal. The “status quo” in this litigation is the Court’s holding 

Case 3:15-cv-00093-SI Document 73 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

that Planning Code section 602.3 does not unconstitutionally burden protected speech. What 

Contest Promotions seeks is an alteration, rather than a preservation, of the status quo. Entering 

an injunction at this stage would, in a sense, “serve to adjudicate anew the merits of the case.” See

Natural Res. Def. Council, 242 F.3d at 1166. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this 

motion. 

In any event, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior dismissal orders, Dkt. Nos. 25, 

43, as well as in the Court’s order denying Contest Promotions’ motion for a preliminary 

injunction in Case No. 16-cv-06539, Contest Promotions cannot demonstrate the likelihood of 

success required for an injunction pending appeal.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pending appeal is hereby DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion for an injunction 

pending appeal.

This order resolves Dkt. No. 57.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00093-SI Document 73 Filed 01/09/17 Page 4 of 4