Paramount Media Group, Inc. v. Village of Bellwood

Summary

Paramount Media Group's challenge to a village's billboard permit ban was dismissed: its claim for injunctive relief became moot after it lost its lease, and its damages claims for First Amendment and due process violations were time-barred under Illinois's two-year statute of limitations. The equal protection class-of-one claim failed because Paramount and its competitor were not similarly situated, as they made different lease offers to the village. The village was immune from Sherman Act claims under Parker v. Brown, and even if a market-participant exception existed, Paramount failed to prove anticompetitive effects or define a relevant geographic market.

Holdings

1. Paramount's claim for injunctive relief is moot because it lost its lease and cannot build a billboard regardless of the ban.
2. The damages claims are time-barred because they accrued in 2009 when the ban was adopted, but Paramount sued in 2013, beyond Illinois's two-year statute of limitations.
3. Paramount and Image Media were not similarly situated because their offers to the Village were different: Paramount offered $1,140,000 in installments over 40 years, while Image Media offered a lump sum of $800,000.
4. The Village is immune from antitrust claims because billboard regulation is a traditional area of local governmental activity for home-rule municipalities under Illinois law, and state law allows municipalities to lease property.
5. Paramount's § 1 claim fails because it did not offer proof of anticompetitive effects or a conspiracy; it only alleged harm to itself, not to the competitive process.
6. Paramount's § 2 claim fails because it did not define the relevant market beyond municipal boundaries and offered no evidence of barriers to competition from adjacent areas.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Paramount's claim for injunctive relief from the sign ban is moot
2. Whether Paramount's damages claims for First Amendment and due process violations are time-barred
3. Whether Paramount's equal protection claim fails because it was not similarly situated to Image Media
4. Whether the Village is immune from antitrust claims under Parker v. Brown
5. Whether Paramount's Sherman Act § 1 claim fails for lack of evidence of anticompetitive effects or conspiracy
6. Whether Paramount's Sherman Act § 2 claim fails for lack of evidence of monopoly power in a relevant market

Disposition

affirmed