Filed Date: July 25, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about an ordinance that the City of Beverly Hills tried to make the plaintiff comply with that would severely burden plaintiff’s efforts to communicate with voters about a pending ballot initiative to amend a city zoning plan for the benefit of citizens of Beverly Hills and private investors.
On July 25, 2016, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the City of Beverly Hills. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was sponsoring a ballot initiative to amend a city zoning plan for the benefit of citizens of Beverly Hills and private investors and was preparing to launch a large media campaign; however, through a local ordinance, the defendant demanded that plaintiff set aside extraordinarily large and prominent portions of its advertising for a government-prescribed message. The plaintiff claimed that the required message was so large that the plaintiff was completely foreclosed from using typical forms of advertising media and because of this burdensome requirement, the advertising the plaintiff can use is essentially worthless in persuading voters. The plaintiff claimed that the requirements of the ordinance could not be squared with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s strong protections for political speech, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring application of the ordinance to plaintiff. The case was assigned to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin and Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott.
On July 25, 2016, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary restraining order. The plaintiff requested in its accompanying memorandum and points of authorities that the court enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to protect its First Amendment rights by preventing the defendant from enforcing the ordinance and requested that the court waive the requirement for a bond.
On July 26, 2016, the court issued an order that confirmed receipt of plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order and reminded plaintiff that it needed to serve defendant with a copy of its application and order. The court told defendant that it should file an opposition or notice indicating it did not oppose a preliminary injunction by August 1 and the court would then determine whether a hearing was necessary.
On August 2, 2016, the court issued an order that granted the issuance of a preliminary injunction that enjoined defendant from taking any steps to enforce its ordinance and the order also stayed the proceedings pending the finalization of a settlement between the parties to resolve the proceedings. The court ordered that the preliminary injunction remain in effect until further order of the court and that the parties should provide a joint status report to the court by November 14, 2016 regarding the status of their settlement.
Nothing further has been filed in this case to date.
Summary Authors
Leilani Argersinger (4/19/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4154996/parties/residents-for-the-beverly-hills-garden-and-open-space-initiative-v-city-of/
Olguin, Fernando Manzano (California)
Bress, Richard P. (California)
Hanelin, Benjamin J (California)
Prins, Andrew D. (California)
Miara, Jenna Lauter (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4154996/residents-for-the-beverly-hills-garden-and-open-space-initiative-v-city-of/
Last updated Dec. 17, 2025, 4:56 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 25, 2016
Case Ongoing: Perhaps, but long-dormant
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a ballot measure committee organized and registered in accordance with California's Political Reform Act and is a coalition of businesses and individuals.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
The City of Beverly Hills, City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Central District of California 2:16-cv-05532
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Voting: