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 KASSOUNI LAW 621 Capitol Mall, Ste 2025 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: (916) 930-0030 ♦ Fax: (916) 930-0033 1 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA TIMOTHY V. KASSOUNI, SBN 142907 R.S. RADFORD, SBN 137533 KASSOUNI LAW 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2025 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 930-0030 Facsimile: (916) 930-0033 E-Mail: [email protected]Attorneys for Plaintiffs Citizens for Free Speech, LLC and Michael Shaw UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CITIZENS FOR FREE SPEECH, LLC; MICHAEL SHAW, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; EAST COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS; and FRANK J. IMHOFF, SCOTT BEYER, and MATTHEW B. FORD, all in their official capacities as members of the East County Board of Zoning Adjustments, Defendants. ____________________________________ Case No. 4:18-cv-00834-SBA PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT Date: April 11, 2018 Time: 1:00 P.M. Courtroom: TBD Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
23
Embed
TIMOTHY V. KASSOUNI, SBN 142907 R.S. RADFORD, SBN 137533 ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
1 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
TIMOTHY V. KASSOUNI, SBN 142907 R.S. RADFORD, SBN 137533 KASSOUNI LAW 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2025 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 930-0030 Facsimile: (916) 930-0033 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Citizens for Free Speech, LLC and Michael Shaw
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CITIZENS FOR FREE SPEECH, LLC; MICHAEL SHAW, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; EAST COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS; and FRANK J. IMHOFF, SCOTT BEYER, and MATTHEW B. FORD, all in their official capacities as members of the East County Board of Zoning Adjustments, Defendants. ____________________________________
Case No. 4:18-cv-00834-SBA PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT Date: April 11, 2018 Time: 1:00 P.M. Courtroom: TBD Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
2 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES HERETO, AND THEIR
RESPECTIVE COUNSEL HEREIN:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 11, 2018 at 1:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, located at
SPEECH, LLC, and MICHAEL SHAW will move for an order for a preliminary injunction
prohibiting Defendants, their employees, agents, officers, managers, delegates, or assigns and all
those in active concert or participation with them, from penalizing, encumbering, or prohibiting
Plaintiffs from displaying political and commercial speech on three presently existing signs and
their supporting structures constructed on Plaintiff Shaw’s parcel of land located at 8555 Dublin
Canyon Road within Alameda County, including conducting any administrative proceeding to
abate said signs and their supporting structures as a nuisance, and from damaging, destroying, or
removing said signs and their supporting structures during the pendency of this action.
This motion will be made on the ground that immediate and irreparable injury will result
to Plaintiffs unless the activities described above are enjoined pending trial of this action, and
will be based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, the declarations of Michael Shaw, Jeffrey Herson, and Timothy V. Kassouni,
the Request for Judicial Notice, the other documents filed concurrently with this application
pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-2, the totality of the Court’s file on this matter, and such further
evidence or argument as the Court may receive at the hearing on this matter, or otherwise.
Counsel for Plaintiffs, Timothy V. Kassouni, certifies that he has met and conferred with
counsel for Defendants, Matthew Zinn, regarding the relief sought in this motion. (See
Declaration of Timothy V. Kassouni at ¶ 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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
3 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
DATED: MARCH 7, 2018
TIMOTHY V. KASSOUNI KASSOUNI LAW
By /s/ Timothy V. Kassouni TIMOTHY V. KASSOUNI
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Citizens for Free Speech, LLC and Michael Shaw
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
4 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................ 5
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 9
II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFERED AND ARE IN IMMINENT DANGER OF SUFFERING FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS A RESULT OF THE COUNTY'S ACTIONS .................................................................................................. 10
III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED THE COUNTY'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH RESTRICTIONS BEFORE THIS COURT .............................. 11
IV. THIS COURT’S FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE PRIOR LITIGATION BARS THE COUNTY FROM ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THE CODE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH RESTRICTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' SIGNS A SECOND TIME .................................................................................... 13
A. Claim Preclusion – Res Judicata ........................................................ 13 B. Rule 13(a) ........................................................................................... 15
C. All Writs Act ...................................................................................... 18
V. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ........................................................................................... 19
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits .................................................. 20 B. Irreparable Injury................................................................................ 21 C. Balance of Hardships ......................................................................... 21 D. Public Interest .................................................................................... 21 E. No Bond Should Be Required ............................................................ 22
VI. CONCLUSION......................................................................................... 23
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
5 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page Albright v. Gates, 362 F. 2d 928 (9th Cir. 1966) .................................................. 16 Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc., 754 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 14 Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964) ................................................................ 11 Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 (1971) ................................................. 11 Bible Club v. Placentia-Yorba Linda School Dist., 573 F.Supp. 1291(C.D. Cal. 2006) ....................................................................... 22 Brown v. California Dept. of Transp., 321 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 19 Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) ................................................................................ 14 California v. Randtron, 284 F.3d 969, (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................... 19 California ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................ 22 Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, (11th Cir. 1983) ................................................ 22 Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. County of Alameda, 114 F.Supp.3d 952, (2015) ................................................................................... 12 Colin ex rel. Colin v. Orange Unified Sch. Dist., 83 F. Supp. 2d 1135, (C.D. Cal. 2000) .......................................................................... 23 Dr. John’s Inc., v. Sioux City, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1022, (N.D. Iowa 2004) .................................................................................................. 22 Exergy Dev. Grp. of Idaho, LLC v. Fagan, Inc., No., 115CV00566EJLCWD, 2017 WL 1097175, at *7 (D. Idaho March 22, 2017) .................................................................................... 16 Hamilton v. Nakai, 453 F.2d 152, (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 945) ................................................................................... 18
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
6 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
Hi-Desert Med. Ctr. v. Douglas, 239 Cal.App.4th 717, (2015).................................................................................................................... 14 Keith v. Volpe, 118 F.3d 1386, (9th Cir.1997) ..................................................... 18 Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) ........................................... 11 Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, (1972)....................................................................... 10 Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) .......................................... 19 Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................... 19 Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corp., 144 F.2d 968, (2d Cir. 1944) ....................................................................................................... 16 Local Union No. 11, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. G. P. Thompson Elec., Inc., 363 F.2d 181, (9th Cir. 1966) ...................................................................................................... 17 Los Angeles Branch NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 750 F.2d 731, (9th Cir.1984)........................................................... 14 Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593, (1926).................................................................................................................... 16 Moore v. Old Canal Financial Corp., 2006 WL 851114 (D. Idaho 2006)..................................................................................................... 16 Pinkstaff v. United States [In re Pinkstaff], 974 F.2d 113, (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................. 16 Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 827 F.2d 1246, (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................ 16 In re Lazar, 237 F.3d 967, (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................... 16 Robamendedi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................... 13 Sammartano v. First Judicial Court, 303 F.3d 959, (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................. 19, 22 Securities and Exch. Comm'n v. G.C. George Sec., Inc., 637 F.2d 685, (9th Cir.1981) ........................................................................ 18
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
7 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
S.O.C. Inc. v. County of Clark, 152 F.3d 1136, (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................... 21 Southern Const. Co. v. Pickard, 371 U.S. 57, (1962).................................................................................................................... 15 State of California v. IntelliGender, LLC, 771 F.3d 1169, (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 19 Tahoe–Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, (9th Cir.2003) ........................................................................................................ 13 Takahashi v. Board of Ed. of Livingston Union School Dist., 202 Cal. App. 3d 1464, (1988) .................................................................... 13 Underwriters at Interest on Cover Note JHB92M10582079 v.Nautronix, Ltd., 79 F3d 480, n. 2 (5th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................... 16 Union Paving Co. v. Downer Corp., 276 F.2d 468, (9th Cir. 1960) .............................................................................................. 16 United Artists Corp. v. Masterpiece Productions, 221 F. 2d 213, 2 Cir., 1955 ................................................................................... 17 United States v. Eastport Steamship Corp., 255 F.2d 795, (2d Cir. 1958) ....................................................................................... 16 Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, 705 F.2d 1515, (9th Cir.1983) ..................................................................................... 18
U.S. Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const., First Amendment .............................................................................. passim U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amendment .................................................................... 12
California Constitutional Provisions
Cal. Const. Article I .............................................................................................. 22
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
8 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
Other Authorities Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law: Cases - Texts – Problems 432 (1977) ................................................................................ 20 Robin J. Effron, The Shadow Rules of Joinder, 100 Georgetown L.J. 759, (2012) ......................................................................... 16 The Rutter Group, California Practice Guide: Administrative Law 10:20 (2015) ........................................................................ 14 The Rutter Group, California Practice Guide: Administrative Law 10:21 (2015) ........................................................................ 13 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4405.1 (2017 update) ......................................................................................... 18
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
9 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
I
INTRODUCTION
The issue to be decided is whether the Defendants should be preliminarily enjoined from
instituting administrative enforcement proceedings for the abatement of signs on Plaintiff
Michael Shaw’s property under the doctrines of res judicata, claim preclusion, and the All Writs
Act.
Plaintiff Shaw is the owner of a parcel of land located at 8555 Dublin Canyon Road
within the County (the “Parcel”). The Parcel is situated within a Scenic Corridor Combining
District (“SC”) designated by the County. (Declaration of Michael Shaw In Support of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Decl. Shaw], ¶ 2.) There is presently on the Parcel a legally
permitted, operating self-storage business with individual lockers to accommodate the storage of
customers’ property as well as open storage for customers’ recreational vehicles. (Decl. Shaw, ¶
3.)
Plaintiff Citizens has entered into an agreement with Shaw for the construction and
display of signs on the Parcel. (Declaration of Jeffrey Herson in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Decl. Herson], ¶2.) Citizens retains an ownership interest in the signs
and a share of any revenue derived from the signs. Id.
One sign, displaying on-premises commercial speech advertising for the self-storage
business, has been lawfully maintained on the Parcel since the time the business commenced
operations. (Decl. Shaw, ¶ 5.)
Citizens has constructed three signs and supporting structures on the parcel per the
agreement with Shaw. The signs have a total of six faces. The messages on each face of the signs
as originally constructed consisted wholly of noncommercial, political speech intended to
challenge the political ideology espoused by County officials. (Decl. Herson, ¶3.) Currently four
faces display political messages, one face displays commercial speech, and one face is blank.
(Id.)
The County has promulgated certain ordinances, known as the Alameda County Code of
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
10 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
Ordinances (the “Code”). The Code purports to regulate the display of signs in unincorporated
areas of the County. (See Excerpts of Code, attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Request for
Judicial Notice In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Request for Judicial
Notice], filed concurrently with this Memorandum.) Under the Code, all new advertising signs
are banned within the SC. (Code §§ 17.30.240, 17.52.550.) The Code defines “advertising signs”
as synonymous with “billboards.” (Code § 17.04.010.) The Code contains content-based
exemptions from its general ban, permitting any sign within the SC District if it contains certain
speech. Pursuant to section 17.52.520 of the Code, signs are exempt from the SC District speech
restrictions if the signs’ content includes announcements of public meetings, no trespass signs,
warning signs, signs identifying a benefactor, signs identifying a location of public interest, and
signs identifying a statue or monument.
II
PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFERED AND ARE IN IMMINENT DANGER OF SUFFERING FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS A RESULT
OF THE COUNTY’S ACTIONS
On or about October 6, 2017, Plaintiff Shaw received a “Declaration of Public Nuisance
– Notice to Abate” (“2017 Notice”) from the Alameda County Community Development Agency
Planning Commission, signed by Paul da Silva, Investigator of the Code Enforcement Division,
and Rodrigo Orduna, Assistant Planning Director & Code Enforcement Officer. (Decl. Shaw, ¶
10; Exhibit B.) This notice ordered that the signs be removed within ten days from the
postmarked date of the Notice. The 2017 Notice also threatened to impose fines if Plaintiffs
failed to comply. (Id.)
The 2017 Notice, by design and effect, has a chilling effect on the exercise of Plaintiffs’
First Amendment rights, and thereby constitutes a cognizable injury in its own right. See Laird v.
Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972) (“In recent years this Court has found in a number of cases that
constitutional violations may arise from the deterrent, or ‘chilling,’ effect of governmental
regulations that fall short of a direct prohibition against the exercise of First Amendment
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
11 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
rights.”) (Citing Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 (1971); Keyishian v. Board of Regents,
385 U.S. 589 (1967); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965); and Baggett v. Bullitt,
377 U.S. 360 (1964).) The chilling effect of the 2017 Notice’s threat of punitive measures unless
Plaintiffs cease to exercise their freedom of speech is even more pronounced because it
evidences the County’s flagrant disregard of a previous order and judgment of this Court. (See
Sections III and IV, below.)
In November, 2017, Plaintiff Shaw received a “Notice of Administrative Hearing on
Abatement of Nuisance” (“Notice of Hearing”) from the Alameda County Community
Development Agency Planning Commission, dated November 22, 2017, and signed by Rodrigo
Orduna, Code Enforcement Division. (Decl. Shaw, ¶ 11; Exhibit C.) This notice stated that a
hearing was set before the Alameda County East County Board of Zoning Adjustments (the
Board), to determine whether the signs on the Parcel violated the Code. (Id.) Originally set for
December 7, 2017, the hearing is has currently been postponed by stipulation, pending the
resolution of this Motion. (Declaration of Timothy V. Kassouni In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Preliminary Injunction [Decl. Kassouni], ¶ 2.) If the Board, an administrative tribunal,
determines that the Signs violate the Code, the Board is authorized to order the demolition and
removal of the signs, including support structures, without the approval of any judicial officer.
(Decl. Shaw, ¶ 11; Exhibit C.) Counsel have agreed that the board will take no such immediate
action. (Decl. Kassouni], ¶ 3.)
III
PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED THE COUNTY’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH RESTRICTIONS BEFORE THIS COURT
On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff Shaw received a “Declaration of Public Nuisance – Notice to
Abate” (2014 Notice) from the Alameda County Community Development Agency Planning
Commission, dated June 2, 2014, signed by Paul da Silva, Investigator of the Code Enforcement
Division. (Decl. Shaw, ¶ 6; Exhibit A.) Substantially identical to the 2017 Notice, the 2014
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
KA
SSO
UN
I LA
W
621
Cap
itol M
all,
Ste
2025
Sa
cram
ento
, CA
958
14
Tel:
(916
) 930
-003
0 ♦
Fax:
(916
) 930
-003
3
12 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 4:18-cv-00834-SBA
Notice ordered that the signs be removed within 10 days from the postmarked date of the notice.
The 2014 Notice also threatened fines and the potential for an abatement hearing if Plaintiffs
failed to comply. (Id.)
On June 1, 2014, Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court, Case No. 3:14-cv-02513, (the
“Litigated Case”), naming the County as defendant. In the Litigated Case, Plaintiffs alleged that
the Code’s regulation of signs violated Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech and equal protection under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and prayed that the
County be enjoined from any and all conduct enforcing the unconstitutional Code to prohibit,
encumber, or penalize Plaintiffs’ signs. (Decl. Shaw, ¶ 7; Exhibit C, Request for Judicial Notice.)
The County did not file a cross-complaint in the Litigated Case. (See Exhibit B, Request for
Judicial Notice, showing no docket entry for a Cross-Complaint in the Litigated Case.)
On July 16, 2015, this Court entered an order denying in part the County’s motion for