Reudy v. O.K. Investments
Plaintiffs Raymond Reudy and Kevin Hicks sued defendants O.K. Investments, Inc. (OKI) and Homayoun Naimi in connection with two wall signs for outdoor advertising. Among other claims, plaintiffs alleged that the signs did not comply with San Francisco ordinances and sought an injunction against their illegal use. OKI cross-complained. The trial court agreed that the signs were illegal and granted an injunction and attorney fees to plaintiffs, but the court also found for OKI on its cross-complaint. Plaintiffs appealed, but defendants did not. In an earlier decision, this court reversed the trial courts award on the cross-complaint but otherwise left its judgment intact.
While the matter was pending on appeal, Business and Professions Code section 5466, subdivision (a) was enacted. Although defendants now contend that section 5466 defeats plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief, the statute was not raised on the earlier appeal. After remittitur, plaintiffs submitted a proposed amended judgment to conform to our ruling. Only after the amended judgment was entered did defendants, for the first time, seek relief under section 5466, filing a motion to vacate the amended judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663. The trial court denied that aspect of the motion to vacate. Court affirm.
Comments on Reudy v. O.K. Investments