Valley Outdoor, Inc. v. County of Riverside

Good Law
65 F. App'x 191
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 23, 2003No. 02-55475; D.C. No. CV-00-00498-RSWLCalifornia812 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs-Appellants Valley Outdoor (“Valley”) and Regency Outdoor Advertising (“Regency”), two billboard companies, challenge the constitutionality of two different versions of Defendant-Appellee Riverside County’s sign ordinance, claiming that both versions violate the First Amendment. They maintain that both versions of the ordinance impose impermissible restrictions on speech, favor commercial over noncommercial speech, and confer unbridled discretion on County officials to grant or deny sign permits. They also maintain that the “grandfather” provi *192 sion contained in the new version of the sign ordinance is specifically targeted at their billboards and constitutes an attempt by the County to single them out for retribution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court granted summary judgment to the County. It held that, because the Original Ordinance was unconstitutional in some unspecified respect, the “grandfather” provision of the New Ordinance that incorporated the unconstitutional provisions, § 19.2(f)(1), was itself unconstitutional insofar as it referenced those provisions. Nonetheless, the district court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.