Read Valley Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Riverside, 04-55029

Judgment as a matter of law for defendant-city on a challenge to its municipal billboard ordinance is reversed in part where, although plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the substantive provisions of the ordinances, the district court erred in: 1) finding plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims related to the city's conduct in refusing to process the late-filed permit applications; 2) granting an in limine motion; and 3) granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/18/2005
• Submitted 10/18/2005
• Decided 04/27/2006
• Published 04/27/2006

Judges

• O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:, Before: FRIEDMAN,O'SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• 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.


• For Appellees:
  
• 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.