Opinion ID: 218050
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Onsite/Offsite Distinction

Text: Plaintiff further argues that the City's distinction between Plaintiff's prohibited offsite signs and permitted onsite signs violates Plaintiff's rights. The distinction between offsite and onsite signs has been repeatedly upheld as content-neutral and valid. See Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 511, 101 S.Ct. 2882; Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir.2003) (The Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and many other courts have held that the on-site/off-site distinction is not an impermissible content-based regulation.). Plaintiff relies on Foti v. Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 636 (9th Cir. 1998), and Ballen v. City of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736, 744 (9th Cir.2006), to suggest that the onsite/offsite distinction in the area of supergraphic and offsite signs must be considered content-based. However, Foti predated Clear Channel and Ballen, both of which reaffirmed the Supreme Court's decision in Metromedia that the distinction is not, in fact, content-based. To the extent Plaintiff has relied on comments in Ballen that Metromedia's offsite/onsite distinction was unique to the law of fixed billboards, the court in Metro Lights had no trouble applying Metromedia to the City's offsite sign ban and the court in World Wide Rush had no trouble applying Metromedia to the Freeway Facing Sign Ban, and both courts rejected the application of Ballen in this context. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated serious questions on this claim.