From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maldonado v. Kempton

United States District Court, N.D. California
Oct 25, 2005
No. C 02-03167 CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2005)

Opinion

No. C 02-03167 CRB.

October 25, 2005


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 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.


Summaries of

Maldonado v. Kempton

United States District Court, N.D. California
Oct 25, 2005
No. C 02-03167 CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2005)
Case details for

Maldonado v. Kempton

Case Details

Full title:NANO MALDONADO, Plaintiff, v. WILL KEMPTON, in his capacity as Director of…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Oct 25, 2005

Citations

No. C 02-03167 CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2005)