What Is the City of Pomona Billboard Lawsuit?

The City of Pomona billboard lawsuit is a long-running legal fight over whether the Pomona City Council violated a voter-passed ban on new billboards when it extended a 1993 contract with Regency Outdoor Advertising after that contract had already expired. Courts have ruled the extension invalid, but as of April 2025 the billboards along State Routes 57, 60, and 71 are still standing, and litigation over their removal and penalties is ongoing.¹²

How the Dispute Started

In February 1993, the Pomona City Council approved Development Agreement No. 93-001 with Regency Outdoor Advertising on a 4-3 vote. The deal let Regency build 10 new double-sided billboards along State Routes 57, 60, and 71 in exchange for tearing down 30 older signs, paying $62,000 in one-time fees, and covering ongoing license and posting fees. The agreement took effect on June 24, 1993, with an initial 10-year term and an automatic 10-year renewal option.¹

Opponents of the deal organized a petition drive, and in November 1993 Pomona voters passed Proposition L. The measure prohibited the construction of any new or structurally altered off-site billboards within city limits and could not be modified without another public vote. Both the city and Regency agreed at the time that Proposition L did not apply retroactively to the 10 billboards already authorized under the 1993 agreement.¹

The 2014 Extension That Triggered the Lawsuit

The 1993 agreement renewed automatically in 2004 for a second 10-year term, set to expire on June 24, 2014. Regency began pushing for a longer extension around 2010. By February 2014, the two sides had tentatively agreed on a 12-year extension covering nine remaining billboards in exchange for a one-time $1 million payment.¹

Timing became the problem. On June 16, 2014, the council gave preliminary approval to what it labeled “amendment number three” to the 1993 agreement.³ The council did not adopt the final ordinance, Ordinance No. 4190, until July 7, 2014. By then, the 1993 agreement had already been expired for nearly two weeks.¹

Within weeks, a group called Citizens for Amending Proposition L, along with Pomona resident Vernon Price and Valley Outdoor president J. Keith Stephens, filed a petition for a writ of mandate in Los Angeles Superior Court. Their argument was straightforward: because the original agreement had expired before the council acted, the July 2014 ordinance was not an “amendment” at all. It was a brand-new agreement authorizing billboards in direct violation of Proposition L.¹

The city challenged the plaintiffs’ standing, pointing to Stephens’s position as a competing billboard operator who had openly lobbied for a deal with his own company. The courts rejected that argument, finding that the citizens group and Price had public interest standing regardless of Stephens’s competitive motives.⁴

What the Courts Decided

In May 2017, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue ruled for the plaintiffs. She concluded that the 2014 extension was a new agreement enacted in violation of Proposition L, ordered the city to set aside Ordinance No. 4190, and awarded the plaintiffs $75,200.40 in attorney’s fees.²¹

The city appealed. On November 7, 2018, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed in full. Justice Audrey B. Collins, writing for the panel, held that the 1993 agreement had expired by its own terms on June 24, 2014, and that the July 2014 ordinance functioned as a new agreement for new billboards, subject to the laws in effect at the time it was adopted. Because Proposition L barred new billboards without voter approval, the ordinance was void. The appellate court also rejected the city’s claim that Regency was an indispensable party, noting that the 1993 agreement itself required the city and Regency to cooperate in defending any legal challenge.⁴

The appellate court also pointed to the removal clause in the original agreement itself: Regency was required to take down all billboards “on or before the last day” the agreement was in effect. That day was June 24, 2014.⁴

Why the Billboards Are Still Up

Winning in court did not produce physical removal. In February 2019, Citizens for Amending Proposition L filed a new lawsuit against both Regency and the city to force the signs down. The city filed its own separate complaint against Regency seeking the same thing.⁵

Regency responded aggressively. The company placed bold red-and-white “WARNING” signs on its billboards along the 10 East, 57 South, and 71 East freeways, threatening legal action against anyone who tried to demolish them. In 2022, Regency filed a cross-complaint against the city, arguing that Pomona had failed to approve a third extension of the agreement.⁵²

By December 2024, the signs were still standing along the 57 Freeway and visibly deteriorating. Reporting by the Daily Bulletin described billboards in various states of disrepair and covered in graffiti. Deputy City Manager Mark Gluba said the city had “received some recent inquiries from parties concerned about the presence and condition of the billboards” but declined to say more, citing the ongoing litigation.⁶

The 2025 Ruling on the $500-a-Day Fine

One of the city’s enforcement tools was a clause in the development agreement requiring Regency to pay $500 per day for every day the billboards remained up after the agreement expired. The city tried to enforce that penalty as part of the removal litigation.

On April 23, 2025, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Holly J. Fujie struck the fine down as an “impermissible penalty.” Judge Fujie found that the provision was “intended to coerce performance rather than to compensate for actual damages” and bore “no reasonable relationship to the anticipated damages from a breach of contract.” Under California law, punitive liquidated-damages clauses of that kind are unenforceable.²

That ruling closed the first phase of the trial. As of the most recent reporting in April 2025, no date had been set for the second phase. The billboards remain in place, and Regency’s warning signs threatening legal action against anyone who tries to take them down are still posted.²

1
Caselaw Findlaw. Citizens for Amending Proposition L v. City of Pomona
2
Daily Journal. Judge Rejects Pomona’s $500-a-Day Billboard Fine
3
Daily Bulletin. Pomona Gives Preliminary Approval to Billboard Contract Extension
4
VLex. Citizens for Amending Proposition v. City of Pomona
5
Daily Bulletin. Warning Signs: Latest Battle in Fight Over Pomona Billboards
6
Daily Bulletin. Pomona Billboards Fall Into Disrepair