Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles California

MEMORANDUM

The district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (the “CRA”) on the issue of lost profits because neither the CRA’s motion for summary judgment on Regency’s inverse condemnation claims, nor the district court’s request for supplemental briefing on standing, gave Regency reasonable notice that the sufficiency of its claim for lost profits would be at issue. See Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir.1998).

The district court’s ruling that the Hollywood and Hoover redevelopment plans were unconstitutional because they vested unbridled discretion in the CRA did not entitle Regency to receive permits for its proposed billboards. See Desert Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. City of Oakland, 506 F.3d 798, 808 (9th Cir.2007). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Regency’s motion for such injunctive relief. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Regency’s motion to withdraw or amend its admission under Rule 36, because the district court’s determination that the CRA would be prejudiced due to the significant passage of time was not “illogical,…