Van Wagner Communications, LLC et al v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|January 6, 2015
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying without prejudice 63 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Renewed) filed by Richard A. Davey, Edward J. Farley, Massachusetts Office of Outdoor Advertising, Massachusetts Department of Transportation. "For the foregoing reasons, 1) the defendants renewed motion to dismiss (Docket No. 63) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 2) the following question of state law is CERTIFIED to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court pursuant to Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1:03: Does the 2009 Transportation Act, codified at M.G.L. c. 6C, empower the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to regulate outdoor advertising throughout the Commonwealth or only with r espect to the implementation of restrictions imposed by the Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965, codified at 23 U.S.C. § 131(a)? A statement of the facts relevant to the question certified and describing the nature of the controversy in w hich the question arose is set forth in the attached Memorandum; 3) the Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, under official seal, copies of this Memorandum and Order and the entire record of this case; and4) pending a response to the certified question from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, this case is hereby STAYED. So ordered." (Patch, Christine)
|November 6, 2013
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: "In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction pending appeal is DENIED. So ordered." (Moore, Kellyann)
|July 10, 2013
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: "Plaintiffs have requested that this Court enter a preliminary injunction to stay the Massachusetts permitting regime, to maintain the status quo with respect to outstanding OOA pe rmits and to forbid the issuance of any such new permits. Because this Court has determined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims arising under federal law and to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction: 1) Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Injunction (Docket No. 2 ) is DENIED, and 2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 28 ) is ALLOWED. So ordered." (Moore, Kellyann)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?