Lamar Advert., L.L.C. v. City of Rapid City, #28903
Citation | 2020 S.D. 30 |
Decision Date | 03 June 2020 |
Docket Number | #28903,#28923 |
Parties | LAMAR ADVERTISING OF SOUTH DAKOTA, L.L.C., a South Dakota Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF RAPID CITY, a South Dakota Municipal Corporation, and EPIC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, a South Dakota Corporation, Defendants and Appellees. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
#28903, #28923-a-PJD
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
THE HONORABLE CRAIG A. PFEIFLE Judge
EDWARD C. CARPENTER of
Costello, Porter, Hill, Heisterkamp,
Bushnell & Carpenter, LLP
Rapid City, South Dakota
Attorneys for plaintiff and
appellant.
JOEL P. LANDEEN
CARLA R. CUSHMAN of
City of Rapid City
Rapid City, South Dakota
Attorneys for defendant and
appellee City of Rapid City.
[¶1.] In this appeal, Lamar Advertising contends that the circuit court erred in failing to declare that the City of Rapid City unlawfully bargained away its police power when it entered into a settlement agreement with Epic Outdoor Advertising under which the City agreed to amend certain sign code ordinances and grant Epic two sign permits. By notice of review, Epic asserts the circuit court erred in denying Epic's request that the court declare invalid a similar settlement agreement previously executed between Lamar and the City. We affirm.
[¶2.] In 2015, Epic petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari, challenging the Rapid City Board of Adjustment's (the Board) decision to prohibit Epic's use of four video signs. The signs were constructed prior to the City's ban on video signs, and the City applied its ban retroactively against Epic's signs. The circuit court granted Epic's petition and reversed and remanded the Board's decision. Both the City and Epic appealed the circuit court's decision to this Court. While the appeal was pending, however, the parties negotiated a proposed settlement agreement "to memorialize the terms of a settlement reached between the parties for the complete and final disposition of their claims, differences, and causes of action arising out of" the above lawsuit. The agreement specifically provided that it did not resolve any claim related to a separate lawsuit pending between Epic and the City.
[¶3.] On March 23, 2018, the City posted a summary of the proposed settlement agreement as an agenda item for its March 28, 2018 legal and financecommittee meeting. The summary explained the reason for the agreement and identified the proposed terms. The "Recommendations" section related the following: The summary explained the following options:
[¶4.] The settlement agreement was listed as an agenda item at the City Council's April 2, 2018 meeting. The agreement had been revised prior to the City Council meeting, and at the meeting, the City attorney explained the revision. Also during the meeting, counsel for Epic related a history of the lawsuit and the rationale behind the settlement agreement. Multiple citizens opposed the agreement. Of those opposing, one citizen expressed the need for the City "to change the way the industry is allowed to operate" and another specifically asked that the Council not sign the agreement.
[¶5.] A motion was made to deny the agreement, and during a discussion on the motion, a council member expressed concern over approving an agreement without knowing the proposed changes to the ordinance. This council member specifically opposed the agreement, believing it would essentially tie the Council's hands. Counsel for the City remarked that "it would be a breach of the agreement if council didn't sign the future ordinance."
[¶6.] After additional concerns were shared, a substitute motion was made to approve the settlement agreement. A council member, although supporting the motion to approve, noted frustration regarding efforts made to eliminate the presence of billboards. He explained that the City "gets sued" and "lose[s]" and the City "keep[s] spending the taxpayer's dollars over and over to lose again." Epic's counsel answered questions regarding the settlement agreement, and after considering additional comments from council members, the council voted 7 to 3 to approve the agreement.
[¶7.] The settlement agreement provides in relevant part:
On April 3, 2018, following approval of the settlement agreement, Epic and the City filed a joint application under SDCL 15-26A-76 to stay the appeal pending before this Court. We granted the stay, and a subsequent application for a similar stay.
[¶8.] In May 2018, prior to any amendments being made to the ordinances, Lamar filed a declaratory judgment action against the City and Epic, requesting that the circuit court declare the settlement agreement invalid. According toLamar, the City bargained away its zoning authority by agreeing to rezone in advance of the required notice and hearing and by agreeing to issue sign permits to Epic in violation of the existing sign code. Lamar requested that the circuit court find "that any actions taken pursuant to the [agreement] are void ab initio and of no legal force[.]"
[¶9.] Epic and the City filed separate answers. The City denied that it had bargained away its zoning authority, indicating that any amendments to the ordinances "will go through the required legal process where they may be approved or rejected by the City Council." The City further claimed that the settlement agreement is conditional. Alternatively, the City asserted the affirmative defenses of waiver and estoppel. It claimed that because Lamar and the City entered into a similar settlement agreement in 2016, Lamar should be barred from claiming that the settlement agreement between Epic and the City is void.
[¶10.] Epic likewise asserted that the settlement agreement is valid and that Lamar should be estopped from asserting that Epic's agreement is invalid because Lamar waived that claim by entering into its similar agreement with the City. Alternatively, Epic requested that in the event Lamar "is successful in its legal allegations claiming the Epic...
To continue reading
Request your trial