Valley Outdoor, Inc., a California Corporation v. City of Riverside, a California Municipal Corporation Stephen Whyld, an Individual Does, 1-50

In this challenge to a municipal billboard ordinance, we must decide whether a billboard company has standing to assert vari *950 ous claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

I

Valley Outdoor, Inc. (“Valley”) leases outdoor advertising space. ■ Though it owns billboards throughout Southern California, of particular concern in this case are five billboards which it erected within the City of Riverside, California.

A

Without having applied for permits to do so, Valley began to pour the foundations for five billboards on January 8, 2000. A then-effective provision of the Riverside Municipal Code prohibited billboards within 750 feet of a freeway. See RIVERSIDE, CAL., MUN. CODE § 19.76.020(B)(2)(a)(vii) (enacted 1983). See generally id. ch. 19.76 (“Original Ordinance”). Valley concedes that each of the five billboards at issue is located within 100 feet of the 91 Freeway. Before completing construction, Valley commenced this action against the City on January 10, 2000, initially contending, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , that the Original Ordinance infringed upon Valley’s First Amendment rights.

Three days later, however, the California Court of…

concurring

in the result:

Although I disagree with some of the court’s statements in its opinion, I agree that the district court’s judgment for the City as a matter of law cannot stand, and that the case should be remanded to that court for trial proceedings.

The City requires that before beginning the construction of a billboard, one must apply for and receive a permit. Valley did not do so. Instead, it began construction and laid concrete foundations for five billboards. After this work had been done without a permit, it then sought a permit from the City, which rejected its request.

If that were all the case involved, the outcome would be clear and simple. Because Valley had not complied with the City’s permit requirement and offered no explanation, reasonable or otherwise, for its failure to do so, the City justifiably rejected Valley’s belated efforts to cure its noncompliance by its attempt retroactively to obtain' a permit. Although Valley now states that applying for a permit before starting construction would have been futile, there is no way of knowing what the City would have done if an application had been filed. If Valley had made a good faith endeavor to obtain…

446 F.3d 948 VALLEY OUTDOOR, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE, a California municipal corporation; Stephen Whyld, an individual; Does, 1-50, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-55029. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted October 18, 2005. Filed April 27, 2006. Eliot G. Disner, Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket LLP, Santa Monica, California, argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant. Darrel C. Menthe, Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket LLP, Santa Monica, California, was on the briefs. Timothy T. Coates, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Los Angeles, California, argued the cause for the defendant-appellee. Gregory P. Priamos, City Attorney, and James E. Brown, Office of the City Attorney, Riverside, California; Michael A. Bell, Bell, Orrock & Watase, Riverside, California; and Alan Diamond, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Los Angeles, California, were on the brief. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Dickran M. Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00370-DT. Before: FRIEDMAN, * O'SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. O'SCANNLAIN,…