Gray•Duffy, LLP Effectuates Change in Local Ordinance for the Benefit of Client

December 2013

Overview

David S. Fisher of Gray•Duffy’s Encino office represented Kings Pawn Shop in criminal and civil cases when the City of Lawndale charged Kings Pawn with a misdemeanor violation a of sign ordinance. Kings fought back by suing city in civil court for discriminatory enforcement of a void for vagueness statute.

Discussion

The People of the State of California vs. Kings Pawn Shop dba Lawndale Jewelry & Loan Kings Pawn Shop v. The City of Lawndale Gray•Duffy’s client, Kings Jewelry & Loan dba Lawndale Jewelry & Loan, was criminally prosecuted by the City of Lawndale when it refused to comply with the City’s sign ordinance. The sign ordinance required that no window sign shall exceed 25% of the total window space and no business shall have signs that exceed two times the lineal frontage of the building. Kings had an expensive, elaborate security system that included security bars hidden within metal “boxes” affixed to the front windows and the faces of the boxes were adorned with artwork. The City considered these boxes signs, not security devices. Kings had no objection to complying with the sign ordinance; however it objected to being singled out amongst the myriad of other businesses that were also in violation of the sign ordinance, yet the City had taken no enforcement action against them. Kings also objected to the language of the ordinance because it was vague in its definition of what constituted a sign. Kings argued that dozens of other businesses had stacked their inventory such as TVs and canned good, from floor to ceiling, and those were forms of advertising signs because the items were years old, past their expiration dates and were never really for sale. However, the ordinance exempted from its scope “inventory for sale.” Thus, Kings demurred to the criminal complaint on the grounds that the statute was being discriminatorily enforced and was void for vagueness. During the pendency of the demurrers, which were continued for approximately six months, Kings and the City worked out a deal that if Kings was able to convince the City Council to amend the Municipal Code to create an exception from the ordinance for signs that are affixed to security gates to conceal the gates. After many public hearings and appearances before City Council, Mr. Fisher convinced the City to adopt a resolution that carved out an exception from the ordinance for signs that were permanently affixed to and concealed, security gates. After the law was enacted, Kings became de facto in compliance with the law and the City dismissed its criminal case. In a companion case, Kings Jewelry & Loan dba Lawndale Jewelry & Loan, was criminally prosecuted by the City of Lawndale when it refused to comply with the City’s sign ordinance. Kings sued the City on the grounds that the statute was being discriminatorily enforced and was void for vagueness. The City filed an anti-SLAPP suit. The hearing on the motion was continued to allow Kings the time to seek the City Council’s approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance, which was ultimately obtained. As a result, Kings dismissed its civil case when the City dismissed its criminal case.

Please Note: This article is necessarily general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice with respect to any particular case. Readers should consult with an attorney before taking any action affecting their interests.