Judges Drops Contempt Action Against City in Billboard Case

Orange won a victory in federal court Monday when a judge dismissed a contempt action brought against the city in a long-running battle over its billboard ordinance.

“This is definitely a victory for the city concerning one stage of the litigation,” said Bradley C. Withers, an attorney representing Orange.

However, U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter’s 1986 ruling that the city’s billboard ordinance is unconstitutional still stands while the issue is under appeal.

“Clearly, the city has a right to legislate in this area,” said Hatter in dismissing a recent contempt of court action that had been sought against the city by Illinois-based National Advertising Co.

But, Hatter said the billboard company may return to court to seek a restraining order against the city if it wishes.

Hatter’s ruling is part of a two-year legal battle in which the company sued Orange in July, 1985, after the city refused to allow it to erect 11 billboards around the city and along the Orange Freeway.

The city permits 200-square-foot billboards and those National Advertising is seeking to erect are 1,200 square-feet.

Last August, Hatter ruled that the city’s ordinance violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. The city appealed the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which stayed Hatter’s order.

In March, Hatter ordered the city to pay a $10,000 fine for not complying with his order to issue the billboard construction permits, plus $1,000 a day for each day the permits were not processed.

Gary S. Mobley, a Newport Beach attorney representing National Advertising, said the company believes that Orange continues to owe the billboard company $30,000 a month in damages for a total of $500,000.

On April 6, the City Council passed a revised billboard ordinance and issued permits to National Advertising. The following day, however, the city issued a stop-work order on the permits and the company sought to have the city held in contempt of court.

“The ruling today does not mark the end of the case,” said Mobley.