First Amendment

Counsel to LAWA on forum status and the regulation of access and protest at the airport, in the secure areas and in the public ones, where the First Amendment and labor law meet on the same curb.

Defended shelter-in-place orders, public-health orders, and reopening plans for counties, cities, and public officials statewide, producing published decisions (Gish v. Newsom (9th Cir. 2021) 987 F.3d 891; Cross Culture Christian Center v. Newsom (E.D. Cal. 2020) 445 F.Supp.3d 758).

Shaped and defended the City of Los Angeles’ Venice Boardwalk ordinance through multiple waves of litigation in the trial courts and the Ninth Circuit, including a remand in which all remaining claims were dismissed and the dismissal was upheld on appeal.

Obtained a permanent injunction for the City of Chula Vista closing a club operating in violation of zoning codes, together with the City’s cost bill, in a case that validated the constitutionality of the adult zoning and licensing ordinance Meyers Nave drafted.

Rendered legal advice for Culver City on its master sign program, onsite/offsite provisions, and signage issues at the Westfield shopping mall, including drafting free speech policy guidelines and adult use provisions.

Meyers Nave is currently advising and strategizing with the City of Anaheim to address various First Amendment and California state law issues at play with the $4 billion OCVIBE public-private development project.

Alameda County, Pechenuk v. County of Alameda, et al. Currently representing the County of Alameda, individual members of the County’s Board of Supervisors, and senior County officials in politically sensitive federal litigation instigated by an unsuccessful candidate for State Assembly. Plaintiff alleged a Section 1985(3) claim against the County Defendants as well as the California Secretary of State for conspiracy to violate her First Amendment rights by allegedly precluding her from effectively monitoring the balloting process for the State Assembly race. The County Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in December of 2023 on the grounds that Plaintiff could not demonstrate the requisite animus against a protected class, that Plaintiff’s claims were barred under the intra-agency conspiracy rule, and further that Plaintiff could not state a predicate First Amendment violation. The District Court agreed, and granted the County Defendants’ motion in its entirety, dismissing the case with prejudice. Following Plaintiffs’ appeal, the matter is now pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Meyers Nave resolved politically charged federal litigation brought against the City of Anaheim by Representative Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and their fundraising committees over the cancellation of a planned fundraising rally in July 2021. Plaintiffs alleged Section 1983 First Amendment claims against the City of Anaheim and the City of Riverside, and Section 1985(3) conspiracy claims against the municipal defendants and numerous non-profit and political group defendants, including the NAACP and the League of Women Voters.

In early 2024 the firm filed and argued a motion to dismiss on behalf of the City, arguing that there was no municipal action to support the Section 1983 claim and that the Section 1985(3) claims lacked any basis for racial animus, third-party standing, or factual support for conspiracy. The case was then resolved by settlement.

Pacific Media Workers Guild v. City of Modesto (E.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-01623-JAM-CKD). Meyers Nave represents the City of Modesto and its police chief against an ACLU constitutional challenge to the City’s provisions barring face coverings and combat gear at public protests. The firm advised the City in adopting the ordinance, which regulates public protests to preserve public safety in response to increased violence and heightened tensions. The ACLU has moved for a preliminary injunction against the regulations.

Successfully defended the City against claims stemming from its rejection of a digital billboard application in a City right-of-way after a competitive RFP and subsequent zoning amendments. Meyers Nave secured a complete dismissal through demurrer and an anti-SLAPP motion, with judgment for the City and an award of attorneys’ fees.

632 F.Supp.2d 925 (N.D. Cal. 2008), rev’d. 634 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2011); amended and rehearing denied, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8505 (9th Cir. April 22, 2010); denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5458 (Oct. 3, 2011). Represented San Leandro in the evolving area of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA“) addressing a mega church within its community. The matter was resolved through federal mediation and settled.

Currently working with a municipal client to advise and make revisions to regulations governing public protests and demonstrations, as well as advising on revisions to billboard regulations. Meg also drafts and updates ordinances for solicitation, loitering, panhandling, vending, leafleting, signs, billboards, medians, and public events, with a focus on constitutionality and future litigation risk.

Provided the City with First Amendment advice regarding the National Straight Pride Coalition’s application for a permit to hold a rally in the City. Drafted an ordinance restricting the weaponization of water bottles, protest signs and the like and imposing further time, place and manner restrictions to forestall violence that accompanied straight pride events in other cities.

Gammoh v. City of La Habra. Successfully defended the City of La Habra’s adult use restrictions on off-stage performances (“lap dances“) and obtained a Ninth Circuit published decision that serves as the touchstone by which all operating standards are judged throughout the country.

Defense of the Agency and individually named defendants in federal court against claims of inverse condemnation, equal protection, First Amendment violations and damages in connection with billboard applications in various redevelopment project areas.

In a matter that grabbed headlines, the firm provided strategic advice and drafted advertising policies and guidelines to withstand First Amendment scrutiny after PETA, backed by the ACLU, sued the Authority over its refusal to post anti-SeaWorld ads.

Defense of the Agency in federal First Amendment litigation challenging the Agency’s and City’s billboard regulations. Obtained a ruling dismissing the Agency from the case with prejudice on demurrer. Decision upheld on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Dismissal obtained before discovery began in federal claims brought by the operator of a proposed adult business, along with advice to Modesto and Ventura on revisions to adult-use ordinances, including urgency and moratorium ordinances.

Defense of County in four federal civil rights lawsuits challenging the County’s adult use ordinance and amortization provision; transactional assistance on applications for amortization extensions.

Legal advice regarding application for religious institution and review of zoning ordinance as to compliance with RLUIPA.