Timilsina v. West Valley City

121 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101819, 2015 WL 4635453
CourtDistrict Court, D. Utah
DecidedAugust 3, 2015
DocketCase No. 2:14-cv-00046-DN-EJF
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 F. Supp. 3d 1205 (Timilsina v. West Valley City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Timilsina v. West Valley City, 121 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101819, 2015 WL 4635453 (D. Utah 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DAVID NUFFER, District Judge.

The Report and Recommendation1 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Furse on July 1, 2015 recommends that West Valley City’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment2 be GRANTED and Mr. [1208]*1208Timilsina’s Motion for Summary Judgment 3 be DENIED. .

. The parties were, notified of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service pursuant to 28 U.S.C..§ 636.and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.4 As of the date of this Order, no objection has been filed to the Report and Recommendation.

De novo review of all materials, including the record that was before the magistrate judge and the reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation, has been completed. The analysis and conclusion of the magistrate judge are- correct and the Report and Recommendation will be adopted.

Because there was no objection to granting West Valley City’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, the relief requested by West Valley City — an order “dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint as a matter of law”5 —is awarded.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation6 is ADOPTED. West Valley City’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment7 is GRANTED and Mr. Timilsina’s Motion for Summary Judgment8 is DENIED. The above-captioned matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to close the case.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

EVELYN J. FURSE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Robert Biplove Timilsina and Big Daddy’s Pizza Restaurant, LLC (jointly “Timilsina”) seek a declaratory judgment finding West Valley City Municipal Code (“City Code”) section 11-5-102 unconstitutional. (Comp. 1. 8, ECF No. 1.) The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 19 & 21.) The parties acknowledged at oral argument that section 11-5-102, while titled Temporary On-Premise Signs, governs all temporary signs as set forth in its opening paragraph — “Temporary signs shall conform to the following provisions” — without reference to on- or off-premises. City Code § 11-5-102.

The undersigned1 has carefully considered the Motions, Memoranda, and oral argument had on April 3, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court DENY Timilsina’s Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANT West Valley City’s (the “City’s”) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment because the City’s prohibition of A-frame signs constitutes a permissible regulation on commercial speech meant to‘ advance aesthetics and traffic safety.

I. UNCONTESTED FACTS

On or about June 10, 2013, Timilsina placed an A-frame sign in an area in front [1209]*1209of Timilsina’s West Valley City restaurant. (Pis.’ Summ. J. Mot. Ex. A, ECF No. 19 at 22-25; City’s Combined Mem. in Opp’n to Pis.’ Summ. J.' Mot. & in Supp. of the City’s Own Separately Filed Cross-Mot. (“Def.’s Summ. J. Mot.”) Resp. to Pis.’ Statement of Undisputed Material Fact (“Facts”). ¶ 1, ECF No. 22.) The Parties agreed at oral argument that Timilsina placed this sign off his property, and therefore the sign constitutes an off premise sign. On July 7, 2013, the City issued Timilsina a $100 citation for violating City Code section 11-5-102(13). (Pis.’ Summ. J. Mot. Ex. A, ECF No. 19 at 22.) Although the citation refers to subsection (13) as prohibiting A-frame signs, both parties refer to the apparently renumbered Code, which moved the relevant provision unaltered to subsection (14). (See, e.g., Pis.’ Summ.' J. Mot. 5, ECF No. 19; Def.’s Summ. J. Mot. 3, ECF No. 22.) The citation includes a checkmark next to City Code section 11-5-102(13), which is now subsection (14), stating “[prohibited signs include: A-frame, mobile, off premise, feathers, nongovernmental flags, streamers, and additional sign attached to an éxisting sign Or fence, ete.”' (Pis.’ Summ. J. Mot. Ex. A, ECF No. 19 at 24.) The issuing officer underlined the word “A-frame.” (Id.) Section ll-5-102(14)(a) prohibits “A-frame signs ... except if located in and as regulated in the City Center Zone.” (Defi’s Summ. J. Mot. Facts ¶ 5, ECF No. 22.) Timilsina placed an A-frame sign between 3576 West 3500 South and a public sidewalk — outside the City Center Zone, (Pis.’ Reply Add’l Facts ¶ 4, ECF No. 26) — advertising “$5.00 Pizza READY TO GO,” (Pis.’ Summ.' J. Mot. Ex. A, ECF No. 19 at 25.) The sign contained “information that was truthful, not misleading, and advertised a lawful product and activity.” (Def.’s Summ. J. Mot. Facts ¶2; ECF No. 22.) Timilsina does not intend to erect any other type of prohibited sign. (Pis.’ Reply Add’l Facts ¶ 5, ECF No. 26.)

•Timilsina focuses- the Court’s attention on nine exceptions to the prohibitions on temporary signs listed in section 11-5-102:

(1) New Development Signs used for any new development iii any zone — subject to a size restriction of 32 square feet (City Code § 11-5-102(5));
(2) Grand-Opening Signs — allowed in all zones without size restriction (City Code §. 11-5-102(7)); .
(3) New Subdivision and Home Sale Signs — allowed in all zones' for subdivisions of 5 or more lots with a size restriction of 32 square feet in one area if one builder, a combined 128 square feet if multiple builders, all not to exceed 12’ in height (City Code ■§ .11-5-102(10));
(4) Open House Signs — “advertising real estate open for inspection for a prospective sale” and may include a “maximum of four (4) off premise open house signs” with each sign not 'to exceed eight (8) square feet (City Code § 11-5-102(11));
(5) Other Temporary Signs — used for “non-business' oriented banners whose sole intent is to promote festivals, holidays, seasons, or other community events ...” without any size restriction (City Code § 11-5-102(12)) (emphasis added);
(6) Political Signs — allowed in all zones “relating to the nomination or election of any individual for public office or advocacy of any issue to be voted upon ...” with a size restriction of 16 square feet if in a residential zone, otherwise there is no size restriction (City Code § 11-5-102(13)) (emphasis added);
(7) Sale, Rent or Lease Signs — allowed 'in all zones subject to a size restriction -of eight-.(8) .square'feet in■ residential areas and thirty-two (32) square feet in [1210]*1210nonresidential zones (City Code § 11-5-102(15));
(8) Vehicle Signs — allowed in all commercial zones and applies if the sign exceeds four (4) square feet (City Code § 11-5-102(16)); and
(9) Window Signs — allowed in all nonresidential zones and may provide a “maximum of 50% coverage of all .windows” (City Code § 11-5-102(17)).

(Pis.’ Summ. J. Mot. 9-10, ECF No. 19.)

Title 11 of the City Code regulates all signage within the City. The ordinance describes the City's.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thomas v. Schroer
248 F. Supp. 3d 868 (W.D. Tennessee, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101819, 2015 WL 4635453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timilsina-v-west-valley-city-utd-2015.