Willson v. City of Bel-Nor
| Decision Date | 06 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:18-CV-3 RLW,4:18-CV-3 RLW |
| Citation | 470 F.Supp.3d 994 |
| Parties | Lawrence WILLSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BEL-NOR, MISSOURI, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Anthony E. Rothert, Jessie M. Steffan, Kayla DeLoach, Omri E. Praiss, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, St. Louis, MO, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey J. Brinker, Claire Coppage Kates, Brinker and Doyen LLP, Clayton, MO, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Lawrence Willson's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 77.) Defendant City of Bel-Nor, Missouri ("Bel-Nor") opposes the motion and it is fully briefed. The Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion and permanently enjoin enforcement of Section 400.120(E) of Bel-Nor's Code of Ordinances, as Plaintiff has established that no genuine issues of material fact remain and § 400.120(E) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff filed this action in January 2018, after he was charged by information with violating § 400.120(E) of Bel-Nor's Code of Ordinances for displaying three separate signs in the yard of his home in Bel-Nor. The Complaint alleges that § 400.120(E) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution on its face and as applied to Plaintiff (Count I), and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count II).
Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of § 400.120(E). The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on March 23, 2018, and issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.1 Willson v. City of Bel-Nor, Mo., 298 F.Supp.3d 1213 (E.D. Mo. 2018). Plaintiff appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the preliminary injunction should be granted, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Willson v. City of Bel-Nor, Mo., 924 F.3d 995, 1004 (8th Cir. 2019). Following remand, the Court issued a preliminary injunction on June 21, 2019, enjoining Bel-Nor from enforcing § 400.120 of the Bel-Nor Code of Ordinances until the matter is decided on the merits. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment on liability and the entry of a permanent injunction.2
The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Id. Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis of its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. "The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials," but rather "must substantiate [its] allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in [its] favor on more than mere speculation or conjecture." Carter v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 956 F.3d 1055, 1059 (8th Cir. 2020) (). "Small factual disputes about the underlying events ... could only create the ‘metaphysical’ kind of doubt that the Supreme Court decried in Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)." Main v. Ozark Health, Inc., 959 F.3d 319, 327 (8th Cir. 2020) ().
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The Court's function is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. " ‘Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.’ " Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) ).
Plaintiff Lawrence Willson is a citizen of Missouri who resides in the City of Bel-Nor. Plaintiff owns and lives in a single-family home in a residential portion of Bel-Nor. Since before January 1, 2017, Willson displayed three freestanding, stake-mounted yard signs in his front yard that bore the words "Black Lives Matter," "Clinton Kaine," and "Jason Kander U.S. Senate." By displaying the signs in his yard, Plaintiff intends to communicate to others his belief in the messages on the signs, which he believes have political messages. (Pl. Decl. of Mar. 23, 2020, ¶¶ 7-10 (ECF No. 78-1).)
At some point after the preliminary injunction hearing was held, a thunderstorm damaged the "Clinton Kaine" and "Jason Kander U.S. Senate" signs. As a result, Plaintiff took these signs down but otherwise would have left them on display to show he had supported these candidates, and as apolitical protest. (Pl. Decl. of May 20, 2020, ¶¶ 11-12 ("Pl. 2d Decl.") (ECF 89-2)); The "Black Lives Matter" sign remains in Plaintiff's yard. (Pl. 2d Decl. ¶ 13; Pl.’s Ex. 6-A (photo of Plaintiff's front yard and signs).)
After the two signs were damaged, Plaintiff began displaying an additional yard sign that bears the word "Thanks" along with the image of a red cross above a smile, to send a message to recognize essential workers for their efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. As of at least May 20, 2020, Plaintiff displayed both the Black Lives Matter and Thanks signs in his yard. (Pl. 2d Decl. ¶¶ 15-17; Pl.’s Ex. 6-A). At all relevant times, Plaintiff has also had a "Save Our Pets" sign on his front door and a decorative "WILLSON" hanging mounted to his garage door. (Pl. 2d Decl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff intends to display additional yard signs in the future, including a sign expressing support for presidential candidate Joe Biden as soon as he selects a running mate. (Pl. 2d Decl. ¶ 18.)3
Bel-Nor has a population of approximately 1,500 people and is approximately 1.4 square miles in size. Its streets are approximately 26 feet wide and it allows parking on both sides of the street. Houses located in Bel-Nor sit on lots that have approximately 50-foot frontages.
Bel-Nor's Board of Aldermen approved Ordinance 983 (the "Ordinance") on September 18, 2017, following a public meeting with the City Planning and Zoning Commission held August 21, 1017, where regulation of yard signs was discussed at length. In brief, the Ordinance permits "each improved parcel" of private property to "post one stake-mounted and self-supporting freestanding sign" and "[n]ot more than one (1) flag." Willson, 924 F.3d at 999.
Bel-Nor was motivated to enact the Ordinance out of concerns over public safety and aesthetics. Specifically, Bel-Nor is concerned for traffic safety along its streets, particularly the safety of youthful drivers, due to the presence of three schools in the area: Bel-Nor Elementary School, Incarnate Word Academy, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Bel-Nor's aesthetic concerns focus on clutter presented by single residential properties displaying multiple yard signs.
Bel-Nor discussed the language of the Ordinance with the City Attorney, the members of the Board of Aldermen, Mayor William Hook, and members of the public on August 21, 2017, to balance the concerns of Bel-Nor and its residents. Although Bel-Nor considered other language for the Ordinance, it did not consider any alternative to address its safety and aesthetic concerns apart from enacting a sign ordinance.
Bel-Nor's Ordinance regulating signs is codified as Municipal Code § 400.120(E) and, as amended, provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial