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.
- Argued 10/18/2005
- Submitted 10/18/2005
- Decided 04/27/2006
- Published 04/27/2006
O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:, Before: FRIEDMAN,O'SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
United States Ninth Circuit
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.