NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PARAMOUNT CONTRACTORS AND No. 08-56033
DEVELOPERS, INC, a California
corporation, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00159-ABC-
JWJ
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a California
municipal corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 2, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior
District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior United States District
Judge, Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Paramount appeals the district court’s July 23, 2007 and June 6, 2008 orders
granting in part the City of Los Angeles’s (“City’s”) motions to dismiss and for
summary judgment. In light of the City’s September 2010 amendment to the
Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District (“Hollywood SUD”) prohibiting
new supergraphic signs, see Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 181340, at
§ 5(B)(11), and thus eliminating both the Hollywood SUD sign reduction program,
see Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 176172, at § 9, and the City’s prior delegation
of authority to the Community Redevelopment Agency to negotiate exceptions to
that program in exchange for fees, see id., we dismiss this appeal as moot.
The statutory change renders Paramount’s claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief moot. See Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506
F.3d 895, 900-01 (9th Cir. 2007). This is not the “rare” situation “where it is
virtually certain that the repealed law would be reenacted.” Id. at 901 (quoting
Native Vill. of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1510 (9th Cir. 1994)). The only
exceptions to the wholesale supergraphic ban in the amended Hollywood SUD are
for projects with vested rights under California law and grandfathered projects that
were approved on or before November 12, 2008. See Los Angeles City Ordinance
No. 181340, at § 6(K). Even if the City improperly denied Paramount
supergraphic permits, however, Paramount “lacked a vested property right in its
2
unapproved billboard permit application.” See Outdoor Media Group, 506 F.3d at
903. That Paramount has raised similar claims in another lawsuit is irrelevant to
whether this appeal is moot.
Paramount’s claim for damages does not present a live controversy, because
Paramount, for strategic reasons, disavowed damages before the district court. See
June 6, 2008 District Court Order at 11; see also Seven Words LLC v. Network
Solutions, 260 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2001). Paramount here asserts that it only
disavowed claims for past damages, and that it remains entitled to seek damages
incurred between the district court’s order on June 6, 2008 and the City’s
amendment of the Hollywood SUD on September 28, 2010. The record belies
Paramount’s assertion that it limited its disavowal to “past” damages. On April 28,
2008, Paramount filed its Statement of Genuine Issues, which deemed
“uncontroverted” the City’s representation that “Paramount has acknowledged that
it is not seeking damages in this action.” In any event, Paramount is not able to
demonstrate that any alleged damages it incurred after the district court’s order
resulted from application of the provisions of the Hollywood SUD challenged in
the complaint. Moreover, the City confirmed at oral argument that its post-
judgment enforcement actions are based on the versions of Los Angeles Municipal
Code §§ 14.4.4(B)(9) and 14.4.4(B)(11) amended as of August 14, 2009, and that
3
is has not, and will not, seek damages on the basis of the provisions eliminated as a
result of the September 2010 amendment.
Paramount’s interest, if any, in attorney’s fees is “insufficient to create an
Article III case or controversy where none exists on the merits of the underlying
claim.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 480 (1990).
Paramount’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
4