Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Dex Media West, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 10-Cv-1857 (W.D. Wa.; Jan. 31, 2011) (Opposition to MSJ)

Dex Media West, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 10-Cv-1857 (W.D. Wa.; Jan. 31, 2011) (Opposition to MSJ)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 149 |Likes:
City of Seattle's Opposition to yellow pages companies' motion for summary judgment (arguing that the Seattle opt-out scheme for yellow pages is constitutional).
City of Seattle's Opposition to yellow pages companies' motion for summary judgment (arguing that the Seattle opt-out scheme for yellow pages is constitutional).

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Feb 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/03/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCASE NO. 10-CV-1857 JLR
S
UMMIT
L
 AW 
G
ROUP PLLC
 
315
 
F
IFTH
 A
 VENUE
S
OUTH
,
 
S
UITE
1000S
EATTLE
,
 
 W 
 ASHINGTON
98104-2682 Telephone: (206) 676-7000Fax: (206) 676-7001
 
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBARTUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONAT SEATTLEDEX MEDIA WEST, INC.; SUPERMEDIALLC; and YELLOW PAGES INTEGRATEDMEDIA ASSOCIATION d/b/a YELLOWPAGES ASSOCIATION,Plaintiffs,v.CITY OF SEATTLE and RAY HOFFMAN, inhis official capacity as Director of Seattle PublicUtilities,Defendants.Case No. 10-CV-1857 JLR
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTIONFOR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENTNOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:February 18, 2011ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
 
Case 2:10-cv-01857-JLR Document 28 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 34
 
 
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - iCASE NO. 10-CV-1857 JLR
S
UMMIT
L
 AW 
G
ROUP PLLC
 
315
 
F
IFTH
 A
 VENUE
S
OUTH
,
 
S
UITE
1000S
EATTLE
,
 
 W 
 ASHINGTON
98104-2682 Telephone: (206) 676-7000Fax: (206) 676-7001
 
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
 
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
 
A.
 
Testimony Before the City Council. ....................................................................... 1
 
B.
 
The Yellow Pages. .................................................................................................. 1
 
C.
 
Ordinance 123427. .................................................................................................. 3
 
II.
 
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
 
A.
 
The Ordinance Satisfies the First Amendment. ...................................................... 3
 
1.
 
The Ordinance Must Be Tested Under Intermediate Scrutiny. ................... 4a. The Yellow Pages Are Commercial Speech. ...................................... 4
 
b. The Yellow Pages’ Primary Message is Advertising. ........................ 4c. Plaintiffs Misapply the Concept of “Inextricably Intertwined”…..….6
 
2.
 
The Ordinance Satisfies the Intermediate Scrutiny of 
Central Hudson
and the Time, Place and Manner Test. .......................................... 8
a.
The City’s Interests Are Substantial. .............................................. 8
 
b. The Fit Between the Ends and the Means Is Reasonable………….9(i) The Standard Is Deferential………………………………..9(ii) The Opt-Out Registry………………………………….....11(iii) The Recovery Fee……………………………………..….13(iv) The License Requirement………………………………...14c. The Ordinance Is Content Neutral……………………………..…18d. There Are Ample Alternative Channels of Communication……..203.
 
 Discovery Network 
Does Not Support Invalidation of the Ordinance. ..... 20a.
 Discovery Network 
Was a “Narrow” Holding and IsInapposite. ..................................................................................... 20
 
b.
 Metro Lights
Requires Upholding the Ordinance………………..22
Case 2:10-cv-01857-JLR Document 28 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 34
 
 
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - iiCASE NO. 10-CV-1857 JLR
S
UMMIT
L
 AW 
G
ROUP PLLC
 
315
 
F
IFTH
 A
 VENUE
S
OUTH
,
 
S
UITE
1000S
EATTLE
,
 
 W 
 ASHINGTON
98104-2682 Telephone: (206) 676-7000Fax: (206) 676-7001
 
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526c. Pursuant to
Spafford 
, the Ordinance Is Constitutional…………...234.
 
The Ordinance Also Satisfies Strict Scrutiny. .......................................... 24
 
5.
 
The Public Service Message Requirement Satisfies the FirstAmendment. .............................................................................................. 24
 
B.
 
The Ordinance Satisfies the Dormant Commerce Clause. .................................... 26
 
1.
 
It Does Not Directly Regulate or Discriminate Against InterstateCommerce. ................................................................................................ 26
 
2.
 
The Local Benefits Far Outweigh Any Burden On InterstateCommerce. ................................................................................................ 28
 
III.
 
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30
 
Case 2:10-cv-01857-JLR Document 28 Filed 01/31/11 Page 3 of 34

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->