HOUSTON — The 14th Court of Appeals has affirmed a summary judgment win for the city of Houston in a legal battle with SignAd over a billboard.
SignAd erects and operates billboards (offpremise advertising signs), and the city regulates those signs under the provisions of the Houston Sign Code, which generally prohibits the construction of new off-premise signs.
Court records show SignAd sued the city of Houston under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, challenging the city’s refusal to renew a special permit to allow the company to own and operate a billboard.
In response to the suit, Houston filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, dismissing all of SignAd’s claims.
On appeal, SignAd argued four issues, contending that the trial court erred in dismissing its claims; it was entitled to have the trial court consider its claim for attorney’s fees; the trial court erred by ruling on Houston’s motion for summary judgment because Houston filed it five months after the deadline for hearings on dispositive motions; and that the trial court erred by considering evidence not properly disclosed during discovery.
On April 21, the 14th Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Justices concluded that the trial court did not err in dismissing SignAd’s claims; the trial court did consider SignAd’s claim for attorney’s fees but did not abuse its discretion by declining to award any fees; it was not erroneous for the trial court to consider Houston’s plea and motion after the original deadline; and the trial court did not err in considering the allegedly undisclosed evidence because that evidence was disclosed to SignAd seven months before the hearing.
“It is undisputed that Houston is a certified city and was thus authorized to exercise control over commercial signs,” the opinion states. “So while the Sign Code is more specific than general state law, the Texas Administrative Code has given certified cities, like Houston, express statutory authorization to make such regulations regarding signs in their jurisdictions.
“Thus, the Sign Code is not inconsistent with state law.”
Appeals case No. 14-25-00039-CV
